Another member of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) has urged the President of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (CJP) YAHYA Afidi to postpone the scheduled meeting of the commission on February 10, 2025, until the issuance of seniority of the judges of the judges of the judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) is resolved in accordance with the law.
In his letter, Senator Ali Zafar requested the postponement of the scheduled meeting, citing concerns about the seniority dispute of the judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad.
The letter also highlights that four Judges of the Supreme Court have already requested the postponement of the meeting. In addition, he mentions that the transfer of judges has altered the IHC seniority list, which raises concerns that these transfers may have organized to influence the appeals related to the founder of PTI and Bushra Bibi.
Senator Ali Zafar suggested that it would be appropriate to address antiquity concerns before proceeding with judicial appointments.
In addition, he proposed that if the Commission insists on holding the meeting, then recently transferred judges should not be considered for appointment.
A couple of days ago, four judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, in a letter, demanded the process of appointing eight new judges to the Court Apex until the challenges of the 26 amendment were decided.
The letter, signed by the senior judge of Puisne, Judge Mansoor Ali Shah and Judges Munib Akhtar, Athar Minallah and Ayesha Malik, went to the Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (CJP), Yahya Afridi.
The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) plans to meet on February 10 to consider filling eight vacancies of judges in the Supreme Court. The JCP approves the judicial appointments. It was reconstituted to include four members of Parliament by the Law of the Constitution (twenty sixth amendment), 2024, which brought numerous changes related to the judiciary.
The Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court has assumed a series of challenges to the amendment.
“The scheduled meeting and the appointment of eight new judges are requested … A complete court to listen and determine that the challenge and even the issue of the transfer of judges to the Superior Court of Islamabad and its antiquity is finally determined in the judicial side, since we are given to understand that such challenges have been launched, ” The letter says.
The judges said that the “existing and continuous state of affairs and certain recent developments” had forced them to make the request. They pointed out that the challenges for amendment 26 were persistent and languishing before the Constitutional Bank.
“For various reasons, which for some are obvious to the point of being evident, these challenges should be addressed by the complete court with an emergency and immediately, and, therefore, they should have already been heard.
“The request to convene a complete court was filed by some of us before. Of the new judges it has been scheduled … surprising and quite hurriedly before the next audience date in said matters before the Constitutional Bank.”
The judges said that development could “relieve and erode public trust and confidence placed in the institution.”
They pointed out that the public confidence in the Judiciary currently depended “crucial” on how the pleas against the amendment was. “The induction of new judges, at this stage, who are clearly beneficiaries of the amendment, will weigh a lot about the hesitant public trust enjoyed by the institution today and makes things more complicated,” they added.
“The dilemma that will be created if the meeting continues to reach its declared objective can be established as follows. If the Constitutional Bank accepts the requests and directs the call of the complete court to listen and decide the challenges of the amendment, the Question, the question will then inevitably arise on who will understand the full court for this purpose.
“This is because at that time eight new judges have assumed the position as it was proposed to create an anomalous situation. In a point of view, the full court would include the new ones appointed. But they would have entered under the amendment itself. This will do this , Give, among other things, give rise to a public perception of the court packaging, which would severely damage the image of the highest institution of the country’s justice in terms of its impartiality and independence.
“From the other point of view, the full court for the purposes in question could only be the judges in the Court at the time of the promulgation of the amendment, and even in office. But that could argue, they would not be the Full Court and affirm that in altered circumstances, the full court cannot sit at all to consider the challenges to the amendment.
The judges questioned why the court was being placed in such a position and “whose agenda and interests are served by exposing the court both to indignity and perhaps we even regret ridiculization?” Why place the court on the horns of an avoidable dilemma? Isn’t it imperative that the question of the induction of new judges be re -evaluated and, for the moment, is put aside? These questions, we believe, answer themselves. “
The four judges urged that the Apex court should carefully consider the moment and composition of the complete court to preserve its integrity and credibility, which was not only that of the highest judicial institution but of the entire legal system.
“However, the celebration of the meeting can prevent, if not effectively eliminate, precisely any possibility. Any decision issued by the full court, if constituted after the induction of the new judges, may not have the confidence public and trust.
