Parliamentary panel rejects JCP nomination
Raises objection to one of five people nominated for appointment as PHC additional judge
Overruling the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, committee approved a one-year extension for two SHC additional judges. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
The Parliamentary Committee on Judges Appointment has refused to endorse one of the candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to be appointed as a judge at the Peshawar High Court (PHC).
The JCP on July 1 approved five names for appointment as additional judges at the PHC, despite reservations of superior bars. Headed by the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), the JCP recommends names for appointment of judges at the Supreme Court and high courts.
These five persons recommended by the PHC Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth were Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ‘s (K-P) Additional Advocate General Waqar Ahmad and advocates – Muhammad Naeem Anwar, Ahmad Ali, Tariq Afridi and Sahibzada Asadullah.
According to sources, the parliamentary committee met on July 8 to consider these five nominations. Out of its eight members, six participated in the committee’s meeting chaired by Senator Sarfraz Bugti.
The committee scrutinised the record forwarded by the JCP as well as reports of the intelligence agencies in order to evaluate competence, qualification, suitability and integrity of nominations. After deliberations, it refused to endorse appointment of one of the nominees.
According to the summary submitted by the committee to the prime minister, “The committee noted that the agencies reports in respect of one nominee show that his financial conduct is not above board; he has compromising attitude; is professionally incompetent and violates rules and regulations.”
The committee was of the view that these remarks were crucial for deciding the fate of the nominee. “Therefore, his appointment is not justified. The committee did not confirm the nomination made by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan,” said its two-page summary.
The committee’s decision has been forwarded to the JCP through PM in terms of 2nd proviso to clause (12) of Article 175-A of Constitution, which says: “If a nomination is not confirmed by the committee it shall forward its decision with reasons so recorded to the commission through the prime minister.”
Since the 19th Constitutional Amendment related to Article 175 A (appointment of judges in superior judiciary) in 2010/11, the superior bars are continuously demanding that the role of parliamentary committee must be revived.
The committee has been ineffective through Supreme Court 2012 judgment in Munir Bhatti case. In view of the SC verdict, the JCP has power to veto the committee’s proposals.
On October 25, 2017, the parliamentary committee while considering confirmation/extension of the Lahore High Court additional judges had noted that prima facie a ‘pick and choose method’ had been employed for selecting these additional judges.
The committee had also discussed remarks about competence and integrity of three recommended judges and suggested additional parameters and more details in cases of negative remarks.
However, the committee did not consider it appropriate to recommend for confirmation of the judges and decided that JCP might be requested to review cases of the additional judges. However, the JCP did not review its earlier decision.
The superior bars are demanding that process of judges’ appointment be made more transparent. Despite strong reservations of lawyers, the JCP rules could not be amended. Former CJP Anwar Zaheer Jamali had notified a committee to review the JCP 2010 rules but it could not complete its work.
The Parliamentary Committee on Judges Appointment has refused to endorse one of the candidates nominated by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to be appointed as a judge at the Peshawar High Court (PHC).
The JCP on July 1 approved five names for appointment as additional judges at the PHC, despite reservations of superior bars. Headed by the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), the JCP recommends names for appointment of judges at the Supreme Court and high courts.
These five persons recommended by the PHC Chief Justice Waqar Ahmad Seth were Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ‘s (K-P) Additional Advocate General Waqar Ahmad and advocates – Muhammad Naeem Anwar, Ahmad Ali, Tariq Afridi and Sahibzada Asadullah.
According to sources, the parliamentary committee met on July 8 to consider these five nominations. Out of its eight members, six participated in the committee’s meeting chaired by Senator Sarfraz Bugti.
The committee scrutinised the record forwarded by the JCP as well as reports of the intelligence agencies in order to evaluate competence, qualification, suitability and integrity of nominations. After deliberations, it refused to endorse appointment of one of the nominees.
According to the summary submitted by the committee to the prime minister, “The committee noted that the agencies reports in respect of one nominee show that his financial conduct is not above board; he has compromising attitude; is professionally incompetent and violates rules and regulations.”
The committee was of the view that these remarks were crucial for deciding the fate of the nominee. “Therefore, his appointment is not justified. The committee did not confirm the nomination made by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan,” said its two-page summary.
The committee’s decision has been forwarded to the JCP through PM in terms of 2nd proviso to clause (12) of Article 175-A of Constitution, which says: “If a nomination is not confirmed by the committee it shall forward its decision with reasons so recorded to the commission through the prime minister.”
Since the 19th Constitutional Amendment related to Article 175 A (appointment of judges in superior judiciary) in 2010/11, the superior bars are continuously demanding that the role of parliamentary committee must be revived.
The committee has been ineffective through Supreme Court 2012 judgment in Munir Bhatti case. In view of the SC verdict, the JCP has power to veto the committee’s proposals.
On October 25, 2017, the parliamentary committee while considering confirmation/extension of the Lahore High Court additional judges had noted that prima facie a ‘pick and choose method’ had been employed for selecting these additional judges.
The committee had also discussed remarks about competence and integrity of three recommended judges and suggested additional parameters and more details in cases of negative remarks.
However, the committee did not consider it appropriate to recommend for confirmation of the judges and decided that JCP might be requested to review cases of the additional judges. However, the JCP did not review its earlier decision.
The superior bars are demanding that process of judges’ appointment be made more transparent. Despite strong reservations of lawyers, the JCP rules could not be amended. Former CJP Anwar Zaheer Jamali had notified a committee to review the JCP 2010 rules but it could not complete its work.