Islamabad:
A subcommittee from the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) will meet on September 26 to prepare the draft rules for the annual judicial performance evaluation of the judges of the Superior Court.
The five -member committee, chaired by Judge Commandkhail, includes the Pakistan Attorney General (AGP) Mansoor Awan, Senator Farooq H Naek (of the Treasury Banks), Senator Ali Zafar (of opposition banks) and the representative of Pakistan Bar (PBC) Ahsan Bhoon.
Previously, the president of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi had formed two committees led by Judge Commandkhail to prepare the draft of the rules for the annual judicial performance evaluation of the judges of the higher courts, as well as the criteria for the selection of judges for constitutional banks (CBS).
On August 21, the majority of the members of the CB committee resolved that the Constitution does not empower it to frame the criteria for the selection of judges.
Now, the same members will meet again on September 26 to write proposed rules to establish effective standards to evaluate the performance of the judges of the Superior Court.
The 26th constitutional amendment ordered the JCP to carry out annual performance evaluations of judges of the higher courts. If a judge is considered inefficient, the commission can grant an improvement period. If, after that period, the judge’s performance is still considered unsatisfactory, the commission will send its report to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
Article 175a (20) also establishes that the Commission can make separate rules to establish effective standards for the performance evaluation of the judges of the Superior Court.
However, this amendment is under challenge before the Supreme Court. Since January, the Constitutional Bank has not assumed requests that challenge the 26th amendment.
Source said the Constitutional Banks Committee, led by Judge Aminuddin Khan, had resolved that the requests would be heard shortly after the summer holidays. However, cases have not yet been listed.
Experts believe that the performance evaluation of the judges of the Superior Court must strictly follow the rules framed by virtue of article 175a (20), based on objective criteria and provide legally justicable reasons.
They argue that, in order to guarantee the equity of the trial and due process, and to avoid any interference with judicial independence, the non -judicial members of the commission should not have the right to vote or participate in procedures related to the evaluation of judges or the reference of reports to the SJC, particularly in cases where they may appear as litigants or lawyers.
Before frameting the rules, many lawyers insist that the judicial review of the 26th constitutional amendment is necessary. There is a predominant perception that the Executive has a dominant role in decision making of the JCP.
Despite the presence of objective criteria, the government has so far been able to influence the appointment of judges of the Superior Court through the JCP. It is even said that the selection of judges for constitutional banks in the Supreme Court was molded by the executive preferences.
The lawyers emphasize that it is important to examine whether the independence of the Judiciary and the separation of powers remain intact after the 26th amendment.
