- The outcome of these petitions remains uncertain: Judge Mansoor.
- SC judge speaks against appointment of additional judges by JCP.
- The question of the appointment of judges should be postponed, he demands.
ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court Puisne Judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has requested postponement of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) meeting scheduled for tomorrow (Friday) as many petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment are still pending. waiting before the supreme court.
In a letter addressed to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi on Thursday, Justice Mansoor raised objections over the existing JCP and demanded that the pleas be disposed of to resolve the matter amicably.
The senior Puisne judge said the JCP, constituted under the 26th Constitutional Amendment, had convened a meeting on December 6 to consider applications for appointment of additional judges to the Sindh High Court and the Peshawar High Court.
According to the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the Judicial Commission has 13 members. The Judicial Commission is responsible for appointing judges to the Supreme Court, high courts and the Federal Sharia Court (FSC).
As per the addition of Article 175-A to the Constitution through the 26th Amendment, the JCP will be headed by the CJP and will also consist of two senators and two MPs.
The commission would also consist of three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the senior-most judge of the constitutional bench, the federal minister of law and justice, the attorney general of Pakistan, a lawyer not having less than 15 years of experience in the field of law and justice. practicing in the Supreme Court and appointed by the Bar Council of Pakistan (for two years).
A woman or a non-Muslim MP can become a parliamentarian and be appointed by the president for two years and will also be part of the key committee.
Listing his reservations on the said meeting, Justice Mansoor said that the present JCP had been restructured and reconstituted under the 26th constitutional amendment of the Constitution and the very constitutional validity of the said constitutional amendment had been challenged before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by many petitioners. from various segments of society.
More than two dozen petitions are currently pending before the Supreme Court in this regard, he claimed.
“Although the outcome of this challenge remains uncertain (it may fail or succeed), a verdict invalidating the constitutional amendment would render void all actions or decisions taken by this new commission, including in particular the nominations for the appointment of additional judges in various high courts and void Such an eventuality could cause serious embarrassment to the institution and the people concerned.
He said this would embarrass and weaken the institution and also result in significant waste of public resources and time.
“All this can be avoided by hearing and ruling on the petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment by the full Supreme Court, so that the question mark over the legitimacy of this commission is resolved once and for all. Further, the appointments of additional judges in various high courts by such a commission, whose constitutional validity and legitimacy are in question, will cast shadows on the moral authority of these appointments, generate distrust and weaken the confidence of the public in the judicial system of Pakistan,” Justice Mansoor said. .
He said to avoid such anomalies, Justice Munib Akhtar and he, as majority members of the then committee under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, decided on October 31 to settle petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment for hearing before the Full Bench of the Supreme Court.
“However, despite this ruling, these motions have not yet been scheduled to be heard by the Registrar before the full court. And we have never received a response from you or the Registrar in this regard,” he said. -he argued.
Calling them matters of paramount constitutional and public importance, he highlighted their hearing and decision on the pleas “before further action is taken by the newly constituted Commission under the impugned constitutional amendment.”
The new clause (4) of section 175A, he said, explicitly required that the rules must provide for a procedure and criteria for evaluation and suitability for the appointment of judges, which was not the case before the amendment under the preceding clause (4). ) of section 175A.
“Given this constitutional position, when the previous commission was established through the 18th Constitutional Amendments, its first act was to establish its Rules of 2010. Without first establishing rules prescribing criteria for evaluating the In view of the suitability of eligible persons, the nominations for the appointment of additional judges to the high courts are likely to create the public impression that the majority of the Commission’s executive is attempting to fill the courts – an impression which must be dissipated.
“Therefore, it is just and proper that until the rules of procedure, “including the procedure and criteria for evaluation and suitability for the appointment of judges”, are established by the Commission under of sub-section (4) of Article 175A of the Constitution, the question of appointment of judges should be postponed,” he demanded.