SHC issues notice on plea challenging judges’ appointment rules

Published January 7, 2025 Updated January 7, 2025 07:52am

KARACHI: A division bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday issued a notice to the deputy attorney general in a petition challenging the rules for appointing judges in the superior courts.

The petition was filed by lawyer Mohsin Ali, through his counsel Ebrahim Saifuddin, before a regular bench of the SHC, seeking to declare Rule 9(1), related to nominations for appointment, and Rule 10 (5), which states that the Secretariat shall not include the names of the members proposing the nominations in the two consolidated lists of nominees for the commission’s consideration, under the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (Appointment of Judges) Rules, 2024, as unconstitutional.

After the preliminary hearing, the division bench headed by Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput put the deputy attorney general on notice for Jan 22.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that on Dec 12, 2024, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) approved the rules in a meeting. He stated that Rule 9 (1) allowed any member of the JCP to nominate a candidate for appointment as a judge in the superior courts.

Judges’ nominations must come only from judicial members of JCP to protect public trust in judiciary, bench told

Referring to the composition of the JCP before and after the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, the counsel argued that the executive, having a majority, could vote for its ‘favoured nominee’ and appoint them as judges of the superior courts.

Regarding the concealment of the names of members who make nominations under Rule 10 (5), the counsel argued that it was an attempt to hide from the public at large whether a nominee was put forward by the executive or a judicial member.

“The mode and manner for the appointment of judges must be transparent, which is an established principle,” the petitioner stated.

The counsel asked the court to declare Rule 9 (1) and Rule 10 (5) of the judges’ appointment rules as ultra vires, arbitrary and unconstitutional on the grounds that granting the executive the authority to make nominations in the JCP could lead to the appointment of individuals who shared allegedly close ties with the executive and were more inclined to cooperate with them.

The counsel pointed out that nominations must come exclusively from the JCP’s judicial members to protect public trust and confidence in the judiciary.

Published in Dawn, January 7th, 2025

Opinion

Editorial

Taking cover
Updated 09 Jan, 2025

Taking cover

IT is unfortunate that, instead of taking ownership of important decisions, our officials usually seem keener to ...
A living hell
09 Jan, 2025

A living hell

WHAT Donald Trump does domestically when he enters the White House in just under two weeks is frankly the American...
A right denied
09 Jan, 2025

A right denied

DESPITE citizens possessing the constitutional and legal right to access it, federal ministries are failing to...
Closed doors
Updated 08 Jan, 2025

Closed doors

The nation’s fate has been decided through secret deals for too long, with the result that the citizenry has become increasingly alienated from the state.
Debt burden
08 Jan, 2025

Debt burden

THE federal government’s total debt stock soared by above 11pc year-over-year to Rs70.4tr at the end of November,...
GB power crisis
08 Jan, 2025

GB power crisis

MASS protests are not a novelty in Pakistan, and when the state refuses to listen through the available channels —...