ISLAMABAD: Senior Supreme Court judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has demanded the postponement of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) meeting scheduled for tomorrow (Friday) as several petitions opposing the 26th Constitutional Amendment are still pending. are pending. in the Supreme Court.
In a letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi on Thursday, Justice Mansoor raised objections to the existing JCP and demanded to decide the pleas for an amicable settlement of the matter.
The judge said that the JCP, constituted under the 26th constitutional amendment, has decided to hold a meeting on December 6 to consider names for the appointment of additional judges in the Sindh High Court and Peshawar High Court. .
According to the 26th constitutional amendment, the number of judicial commissions is 13. The Judicial Commission is mandated to appoint judges to the Supreme Court, High Courts and the Federal Shariat Court (FSC).
As per the addition of Article 175-A to the Constitution by the 26th Amendment, the JCP will be headed by the Chief Justice and will also include two senators and two MNAs.
The commission will consist of the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the senior-most judge of the Constitution Bench, the Federal Minister for Law and Justice, the Attorney General of Pakistan, a lawyer with not less than 15 years of experience. Exercise of nomination by the Pakistan Bar Council (for two years) to the Supreme Court.
A woman or non-Muslim Member of Parliament is eligible to become a Member of Parliament nominated by the Speaker for a two-year term and also a part of the Key Panel.
While recording his observations on the said meeting, Justice Shah said that the present JCP was reconstituted under the 26th Constitutional Amendment of the Constitution and the constitutionality of the said constitutional amendment was challenged by several petitioners in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. was from different sections of society.
He said that more than two dozen petitions are currently pending in the Supreme Court in this regard.
“Although the outcome of this challenge remains uncertain (it may fail or succeed), the decision to invalidate the constitutional amendment will affect any actions or decisions taken by this new commission, especially the additional ones in the various High Courts. including nominations for judges. Such an event may cause serious embarrassment to the institution and the persons involved in it.”
He said that this would embarrass and weaken the institution and would be a huge waste of public resources and time.
All this could be avoided if the full court of the Supreme Court heard and decided the petitions challenging the 26th constitutional amendment, so that the question mark on the legality of this commission would be settled forever. Moreover, the appointment of Additional Judges to various High Courts by such commissions, whose constitutionality and legality are questionable, will cast doubt on the moral authority of these appointments and create distrust and public confidence in the judiciary of Pakistan. will weaken the trust.” Justice Mansoor said.
He said that to prevent such irregularities, Justice Muneeb Akhtar and he as the majority members of the then committee under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, on October 31, dismissed the petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. Decided to schedule a hearing in court. Full Court of the Supreme Court.
“However, despite this decision, those applications have not yet been fixed for hearing by the Registrar before the Full Court. And we have never received any response from you or the Registrar in this regard,” he said. said
Describing them as matters of utmost constitutional and public importance, he insisted on hearing them and deciding the petitions “before any further action is taken by the newly constituted Commission under the challenged constitutional amendment.” Go”.
He said that the new clause (4) of Article 175A clearly mandates that the rules should provide procedures and criteria for assessment, evaluation and fitness for the appointment of judges, which the previous clause (4 ) was not the case before the amendment under s. of Article 175A.
“In view of this constitutional position, when the earlier Commission was constituted by the 18th Constitutional Amendment, its first act was to make its own Rules of 2010. Without first laying down rules for assessing and assessing the fitness of eligible persons, the High Courts have made additional Nominations for appointment of judges are likely to create a public impression that the executive in the majority commission is trying to fill the courts – an impression that must be dispelled.
“Therefore, it is fair and proper that as long as rules of procedure are framed by the Commission under Clause (4) of Article 175A of the Constitution, “procedure and criteria for appointment of Judges, including evaluation and fitness”. , the issue of appointment of judges should be postponed,” he demanded.