ISLAMABAD: A perception that they are becoming virtually redundant in the process of appointment of superior court judges has led parliamentarians to put their heads together and suggest what they call improvement in the procedure laid down under article 175-A of the constitution for the appointment process.

And to strengthen the role of parliamentarians in the procedure, the eight-member and bi-partisan Parliamentary Committee (PC) on Judicial Appointments has decided to seek input from all stakeholders. For the purpose it will extend invitation to important institutions representing the legal fraternity at different tiers.

“As a first step, we have decided to invite Qalbe Hassan, the vice chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council which is the umbrella body that supervises the affairs of lawyers, and a representative of the council’s law reforms committee and the newly-elected president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Kamran Murtaza, to brief the committee about their views on the procedure,” said ruling party Senator Rafiq Rajwana while talking to Dawn.

The senator was in Islamabad on Friday to attend a meeting of the PC that was presided over by MNA Mohammad Arshad Khan Leghari and attended by Leader of the House in Senate Raja Zafarul Haq, former law minister Farooq H. Naek, Haji Adeel, Mohammad Bashir Virk, Naveed Qamar and Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

A sub-committee of the PC has also been formed comprising Mr Naek, Rafiq Rajwana and Mr Virk. It may meet after 10 days.

At a later stage the PC would get a feedback and opinion also from presidents of other high court bar associations and prominent jurists to formulate workable rules for bringing another amendment in the constitution to strengthen the procedure of judges’ appointment.

The procedure of judges’ appointment had become controversial when former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was heading the Judicial Commission (JC) with the growing perception that the PC had become useless in the wake of all powerful JC, especially when the nominations for elevation of judges could only be initiated by chief justices.

This led the PBC to suggest amendments in the JC Rules, 2010 which the JC is still seized with.

The JC and the PC are two limbs created by amending Article 175-A through 18th and 19th amendments for procedure of the appointment of superior court judges.

But, according to some legal observers, the Supreme Court judgment in the Munir Hussain Bhatti case in May, 2011, disturbed the balance in the favour of JC. The court ruled that the PC should give reasons for not accepting the recommendation of the JC about elevation of a judge, otherwise it would be considered as “unreasoned and arbitrary”.

The controversy over the powers of the PC and JC erupted in the first week of February, 2011, when the PC then headed by Senator Nayyar Hussain Bokhari of PPP rejected JC’s recommendations to give one year extension to the service tenures of four additional judges of the Lahore High Court and then on March 1 nominations regarding two judges of the Sindh High Court.

Even the issue was reverberated in the Senate recently when the house on a motion tabled by Senator Farhatullah Babar in August had vented their frustration by showing their reservation and complaining about ineffectiveness of the PC in the nomination and ongoing process of judges’ appointment.

“The series of meeting being planned by the PC should not be construe as a confrontation between the PC and JC or a plot to curtail the powers of the JC,” said Senator Rajwana.

The scrutiny process should be meaningful and the condition that recommendations of the JC would consider to be final if the PC failed to give its opinion on the appointments in 14 days needed perfection, he said, adding that this would ensure independence of judiciary in its true meaning.

The PC was considering conducting a thorough research to compare the appointment procedure of judges in other countries with that of Pakistan, he said.