JCP ignores the IHC chief judge again

ISLAMABAD:

The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) has once again overlooked Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Judge Mohsin Akhtar Kayani while filling vacant posts in the Supreme Court.

At its meeting on Tuesday, only one PCJ member, Justice Munib Akhtar, voted in favor of Kayani’s elevation to the SC. No other judicial member of the commission, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, Federal Constitutional Court Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi supported the proposal.

There is no justification for not elevating Justice Kayani to the high court.

Meanwhile, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, who is already working as acting SC judge, was proposed to be appointed permanent judge.

Earlier, CJP Afridi was interested in appointing Aurangzeb as IHC chief justice, but most JCP members, especially those belonging to the executive, did not agree with the idea. Instead, they voted in favor of the appointment of Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar as IHC judge.

Justice Dogar was one of three judges transferred to the IHC from other high courts in February.

A senior lawyer said that Justice Miangul Hassan Augranzeb is a judge concerned about his image and that was the reason why the government did not support his appointment as IHC judge.

The executive has gained dominance in the JCP after the passage of the 26th amendment.

The judicial members of the PCJ have also been unable to develop any strategy to reduce this dominant role of the executive in the commission.

Earlier, the JCP failed to approve by majority a proposal to appoint Justice Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail as the chief justice of the Balochistan High Court (BHC).

However, the commission on Tuesday unanimously approved his nomination as BHC justice.

There is no justification as to why he was ignored then and elevated to the same position this time. Interestingly, members of the judiciary have also changed their position regarding him.

The five IHC judges who last year wrote a letter against the alleged interference of the intelligence services in judicial functions are facing a difficult time. They have also failed to gain the support of their fellow judges.

Firstly, the chief justices as well as CJP Yahya Afridi supported the transfer of three judges from different high courts to the IHC. Since these transfers, the five judges, especially Justice Kayani, have been sidelined. The judges also approached the Supreme Court, but their grievances could not be redressed.

After the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment, these judges have limited space.

Following the resignation of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah from the Supreme Court, there were reports that some IHC judges may also resign. However, they are resisting and have challenged the 27th Constitutional Amendment in the high court.

Likewise, they have also objected to the constitutionality of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) in the case of transfer of judges. His intrajudicial appeal has been rejected by the FCC for lack of prosecution.

Efforts are now being made to force Judge Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri to resign.

A division of the IHC headed by Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, ignoring an order from a larger division of the SC, has sought Higher Education Commission (HEC) registration of Justice Jahangiri’s title.

Earlier, the bench headed by Justice Dogar had restricted Justice Jagangiri from judicial work. The provisional order had been annulled by the TS. The SC expected the IHC division bench to first decide the maintainability of the quo warranto petition against Justice Jahangiri.

However, instead of deciding the objections, the IHC court on Tuesday sought the HEC file. Even no notice has been issued to the respondent judge.

There are several issues that need to be addressed in this case.

Firstly, the same matter is already pending in the Sindh High Court. Likewise, it is necessary to first determine the appropriate forum. Some judges have already expressed the view that only the Supreme Judicial Council (SSC) can proceed against a judge and that no other forum can remove him.

The same issue is also pending in the Sindh High Court. The IHC has ignored this aspect and decided to pursue the matter further.

It is also necessary to decide whether Justice Dogar can hear Justice Jahangiri’s case as Justice Jahangiri was among the five judges who challenged Justice Dogar’s transfer in the IHC. Earlier, Justice Jahangiri had also raised the issue of bias in this matter.

It is a fact that the relationship of the five IHC judges with the executive is not cordial, but their own judges are giving them a hard time.