HRCP recommends apex court to review judicial commission's regulations

HRCP asks SC to prescribe objective criteria for appointment of judges and ensure process is fair and transparent

ISLAMABAD: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has recommended the Supreme Court to review the Judicial Commission of Pakistan's regulations regarding the appointment of the superior court’s judges.

HRCP, in its annual report for the year 201,4 suggested that the apex court should review the judicial commission’s regulations, prescribe objective criteria for the appointment of judges, and ensure the process is fair and transparent.

“The principles laid down by the judiciary for exercise of discretionary authority by the executive must first be applied to the administrative authority of judges,” the commission further suggested.

It further added there is need to structure the wide unbridled discretion vested in the office of the chief justice, adding that a starting point can be the introduction of modern automated court and case management systems across all courts.

“A new judicial policy that does not pay lips service to the problem of pendency but looks at its perennial causes and finds sustainable solution should be formulated and implemented. Such an exercise by a national judicial policy making committee must be accompanied by an exercise undertaken by the law commission to identify lacunae in procedural and substantive laws that cause delay in adjudication of cases on the one hand and miscarriage justice on the other.”

HRCP further stated that it is time the judiciary indulged introspection as the 21st Amendment is not a solution to Pakistan’s problem of terror and is more a vote of no confidence in the judiciary.

“The judges who have been discharging their duties fairly, diligently and with integrity would have a right to be angry with the government for projecting the judiciary as a major cause for proliferation of terror in the country. Such anger must, however, be directed toward initiating judicial reform,” the report said.

The commission also observed there is no objective test for the exercise of Article 184 (3) powers, adding that former chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry had exercised suo motu powers in a manner that attracted much criticism.

The report upheld that post-Chaudhry, there was hope that the apex court might constitute a larger bench to clearly lay out the legal basis for exercise of Article 184 (3) powers and also provide appeal under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution as demanded by the superior bars.

However, the report admitted a number of suo motus have been declined and signs of internal restraint are visible.

“Post Chaudhry, the Supreme Court is trying to undo some of the damage done to our constitutional jurisprudence in the past few years since the restoration of judges,” it further stated.

However, the report raised questions over the SC’s judicial council for not taking complaint against the superior court’s judges. At the end of 2014, more than 1.793 million cases were pending in the country.

The report further stated judicial accountability remains taboo as according to Transparency International of Pakistan, the judiciary in Pakistan is perceived to be amongst one of the more public institutions.