IHC seeks govt reply on stalled judges' appointments

The Islamabad High Court on Thursday indicated that the federal government should first explain the status of the long-pending summary for the appointment of high court judges before the court decides whether a petition challenging President Asif Ali Zardari's inaction on the matter is maintainable.

The petition, filed before the IHC on Wednesday by Advocate Luqman Zafar Chaudhry through counsel Zahid Asif Chaudhry, challenged President Asif Ali Zardari's continued failure to approve the summary forwarded by the prime minister following the Judicial Commission of Pakistan's recommendations for appointments to the Islamabad, Lahore, Sindh and Balochistan high courts.

It argued that the president had "not yet given his assent nor returned the said summary but held it without any legal justification", contending that the Constitution "contemplated no third option of indefinite silence or inaction". The petitioner maintained that the continued delay had disrupted judicial appointments and aggravated the shortage of judges in the superior courts.

The petition sought directions for the Presidency to disclose when it had received the summary and explain the reasons for the delay, besides asking the court to direct the president, through his secretary, to immediately approve the summary.

Hearing the petition, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir repeatedly questioned whether a constitutional writ could be issued against the president, while also pressing the petitioner's counsel to identify any precedent in which a court had directed the head of state to perform a constitutional duty.

Advocate Zahid Asif Chaudhry, representing petitioner Advocate Luqman Zafar Chaudhry, argued that the summary had already been sent to the president for approval and claimed there were reports that the government was preparing to issue the appointments notification within the next 48 hours.

He urged the court to seek details of the summary from the government, saying, "At least ask the government what the status of the summary is."

Justice Tahir, however, continued to question the legal basis of the petition.

"We are asking whether a writ can be issued against the president," the judge remarked, asking counsel to cite a judgment in which a court had directed the president to discharge his constitutional responsibilities.

When counsel argued that the office of the president in Pakistan was "ceremonial" and maintained that the president had no discretion beyond granting approval, the court responded that it was looking for a judicial precedent specifically dealing with directions to the president.

The bench also sought clarity on the authority empowered to issue the appointments notification.

Counsel submitted that the Ministry of Law ordinarily issues the notification after the president's approval, but argued that since more than 15 days had elapsed, "the competent authority should issue the notification" if the president had failed to act.