Pakistan Bar Council challenges LHC CJ’s appointment

Members of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) have filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s Lahore Registry, challenging the appointment of Justice Aalia Neelum as the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court (LHC).

The petition argued that the appointment violates the seniority principle, the Constitution, constitutional conventions, judicial independence, fundamental rights, and the rule of law.

The petitioners, including PBC members Tahir Faraz Abbasi, Munir Ahmed Kakar, Abid Shahid Zuberi, Shahab Sarki, Shafqat Mehmood Chauhan, Chaudhary Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan and Chaudhary Ikhlaq Ahmed, named the Federation of Pakistan, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) and the Parliamentary Committee as respondents.

They requested that the court annul the notification issued on July 10, appointing Justice Neelum as the province’s top judge.

They also called for the JCP to be properly constituted under Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan to consider appointing the senior-most judge of the LHC as its Chief Justice.

The petition raised 12 points of law and public importance, questioning whether the appointment of the Chief Justice in violation of the seniority principle is a matter of public importance under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and the judgment in the case of Al-Jehad Trust vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 324).

The petitioners also questioned the constitution of the JCP on July 2, when the decision to nominate the Chief Justice was made.

The petition highlighted that the LHC’s top position became vacant after Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan’s elevation to the Supreme Court on June 7.

Justice Shujaat Ali Khan was appointed as acting Chief Justice. The JCP later considered the nominations of three judges: acting Chief Justice Shujaat Ali Khan, Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, and Justice Aalia Neelum, who was the most junior among the three.

The petition stressed that judicial appointments should adhere to the rule of law, meritocracy, and fairness, noting that deviations from these principles undermine the public’s faith in the judiciary. It argued that the seniority principle, as established in the Al-Jehad Trust judgment, is a constitutional convention.

It emphasised that if judges perceive that their appointments depend on subjective opinions rather than seniority, it could compromise judicial independence.