Evaluation commission of each high court will share its judge performance report with the JCP
ISLAMABAD:
The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) has moved closer to formalizing a framework for the annual performance evaluation of high court judges, with a key committee reaching broad agreement on proposed rules aimed at setting measurable standards under Article 175-A (20) of the Constitution.
A meeting of the JCP committee, headed by Justice Aamir Farooq, was held on Tuesday to deliberate on the draft rules. Other members of the committee include Mansoor Awan, Ali Zafar and Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) representative Ahsan Bhoon.
The meeting continued for more than two hours.
It is learned that a consensus has been reached among the committee members on the proposed rules for evaluating the annual performance of high court judges. However, a committee member told The Express PAkGazette that while agreement has been reached on several points, one more meeting may still be necessary for formal approval.
According to the understanding reached so far, a proposed evaluation committee comprising judicial members of the PCJ will evaluate the quality of the high court judges. Points will be assigned for both the quality and quantity of judicial decisions. Additionally, grades will also be awarded for punctuality, efficiency, and case management.
It has further been suggested that negative scores should also be assigned based on the conduct of the judges.
Under the proposed mechanism, the evaluation committee of each high court will share its performance report of judges with the JCP, which will then take a final decision. However, it has been recommended that allegations of misconduct not be considered by evaluation committees.
According to the Constitution, if the PCJ, by majority, decides that a particular judge is ineffective, the matter will be referred to the Supreme Judicial Council to initiate misconduct proceedings against him.
A JCP committee member told The Express PAkGazette that numerical marks will be assigned to judges during the evaluation of their performance. The purpose of assigning numbers, the member said, is to ensure transparency in the evaluation process.
Meanwhile, the JCP is also holding meetings to consider the confirmation of 40 additional high court judges. Following the passage of the 26th constitutional amendment, these judges were appointed to various high courts. There is a growing perception that the executive has assumed a dominant role in the appointment and confirmation of judges.
Lawyers believe that the confirmation of these 40 judges presents a significant challenge to the chief justices, particularly in an environment where the executive is seen as exerting decisive influence over JCP decision-making.
There are reports that judicial members of the PCJ have reservations regarding the confirmation of some of the additional judges. Observers say it will be crucial to see how the commission’s judicial members evolve their strategy under the current circumstances.
