JCP’s decisions mired in controversy, say MPs
Parliamentarians, lawyers call for changes in nomination process
Supreme Court. PHOTO: EXPRESS/FILE
ISLAMABAD:
In the wake of the latest recommendations for appointment of superior court judges, the procedure governing the nomination has come under strong criticism from parliamentarians and lawyers.
On October 25, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) had recommended the promotion of Sindh High Court (SHC) Chief Justice Faisal Arab as a Supreme Court judge. The commission also recommended the appointment of Justice Sajjad Ali Shah as the new chief justice of the SHC to the parliamentary committee, which then has to endorse the decision.
Judicial commission recommends reappointment of two SC judges
However, the Parliamentary Committee on Judges Appointment has decided not to hold any meetings to consider the JCP proposals.
Farooq H Naek, a committee member, told The Express Tribune that the panel would not hold the meeting. “We feel the committee has become a rubber stamp to approve or confirm a nomination sent by the judicial commission,” he said.
He also called on the federal government to place the constitutional amendment bill drafted by the committee before parliament.
Naek told the committee had already written to the law and justice ministry to initiate the process of tabling the bill before the Senate/National Assembly as a government bill.
Dispensing justice: Lawyer from capital among two under consideration as IHC judge
A three-member sub-committee headed by Naek had consulted bar representatives and retired judges, and proposed constitutional amendments to change the present procedure of judges’ appointments.
The committee proposed the committee’s decision could not be challenged in any court. The proposal also calls for increasing the time duration for the committee from 14 to 30 days as the panel could not play its role effectively in the limited time given for vetting the JCP’s recommendations.
“We cannot even get a clearance report from intelligence agencies in this period about a nominee,” complained a member of the parliamentary panel.
Another committee member, Senator Ilyas Ahmed Bilour, believed the parliamentary committee was acting like a “post office”. Even the committee’s decisions have been set aside by high courts, he added.
Two ex-judges reappointed following JCP approval
Mahmood Bashir Virk, also a committee member, said the previous process of judges’ appointments was much better than the current one.
The amendment proposals also state a committee, comprising the chief justice of Pakistan and two senior-most judges of the relevant high court, the advocate general and one representative of the respective provincial bar council, should recommend the names of high court judges. The committee also proposed abolishing the condition for the presence of a retired high court judge as a judicial commission member.
The JCP proceedings decisions have also drawn reservations from the superior courts bars over the judges’ appointment.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 5th, 2015.
In the wake of the latest recommendations for appointment of superior court judges, the procedure governing the nomination has come under strong criticism from parliamentarians and lawyers.
On October 25, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) had recommended the promotion of Sindh High Court (SHC) Chief Justice Faisal Arab as a Supreme Court judge. The commission also recommended the appointment of Justice Sajjad Ali Shah as the new chief justice of the SHC to the parliamentary committee, which then has to endorse the decision.
Judicial commission recommends reappointment of two SC judges
However, the Parliamentary Committee on Judges Appointment has decided not to hold any meetings to consider the JCP proposals.
Farooq H Naek, a committee member, told The Express Tribune that the panel would not hold the meeting. “We feel the committee has become a rubber stamp to approve or confirm a nomination sent by the judicial commission,” he said.
He also called on the federal government to place the constitutional amendment bill drafted by the committee before parliament.
Naek told the committee had already written to the law and justice ministry to initiate the process of tabling the bill before the Senate/National Assembly as a government bill.
Dispensing justice: Lawyer from capital among two under consideration as IHC judge
A three-member sub-committee headed by Naek had consulted bar representatives and retired judges, and proposed constitutional amendments to change the present procedure of judges’ appointments.
The committee proposed the committee’s decision could not be challenged in any court. The proposal also calls for increasing the time duration for the committee from 14 to 30 days as the panel could not play its role effectively in the limited time given for vetting the JCP’s recommendations.
“We cannot even get a clearance report from intelligence agencies in this period about a nominee,” complained a member of the parliamentary panel.
Another committee member, Senator Ilyas Ahmed Bilour, believed the parliamentary committee was acting like a “post office”. Even the committee’s decisions have been set aside by high courts, he added.
Two ex-judges reappointed following JCP approval
Mahmood Bashir Virk, also a committee member, said the previous process of judges’ appointments was much better than the current one.
The amendment proposals also state a committee, comprising the chief justice of Pakistan and two senior-most judges of the relevant high court, the advocate general and one representative of the respective provincial bar council, should recommend the names of high court judges. The committee also proposed abolishing the condition for the presence of a retired high court judge as a judicial commission member.
The JCP proceedings decisions have also drawn reservations from the superior courts bars over the judges’ appointment.
A Pakistan Bar Council member said the representatives of bar councils in the JCP were considering resignations. He lamented the commission was not considering the bar council’s proposals to amend the JCP rules of 2010.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 5th, 2015.