The Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) on Thursday approached the Supreme Court, requesting it to issue directions for the postponement of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) meeting for the appointment of judges to the top court until the decision of the case against the 26th Amendment.
On January 27, the Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench (CB), headed by Justice Aminud Din Khan, issued notices on the petitions against the 26th Amendment and the applications for the constitution of a Full Court to hear such petitions. The office has been directed to fix these petitions after three weeks. However, soon after the hearing, a meeting of the JCP was called by its Chairman for February 11 to consider the appointment of eight judges to the Supreme Court.
Currently, the JCP is constituted under Article 175A of the Constitution, as amended through the 26th Amendment.
The LHCBA, in its application, contended that the amended provisions alter the composition and functioning of the JCP in favor of the executive, allowing it to dominate and control the judiciary, which is contrary to the independence of the judiciary. "Any appointment made under the purported new constitutional dispensation for the appointment of judges and their presence on the bench will create a conflict of interest and undermine the fair administration of justice, the rule of law, and the Constitution."
The application argued that the matter is of great constitutional importance, and the issues involved directly impact the public and citizens of Pakistan as a whole. It added that the petitions also challenge the vires of the said Act on the grounds that it seeks to alter Articles of the Constitution in a manner that contravenes the Constitution's salient features.
"In this context, the convening of the JCP meeting on February 11, 2025, may undermine the independence of the judiciary," the application contended.
The LHCBA also alleged that there is a general perception that the appointment of such a large number of judges under the new dispensation is aimed at packing the Court with judges who, having been appointed under the new provisions added by the Act, may not be independent or free from personal bias.
The LHCBA further contended that it is imperative that the process of judicial appointments be beyond suspicion, transparent, and in accordance with the Constitution to maintain public trust, impartiality in the judiciary, and ensure its independence.
"The judiciary is the last line of defense against the violation and onslaught on the fundamental rights of the people."
"Judicial appointments in accordance with the Constitution are, therefore, necessary for the protection of people's rights."
"It is well-established that the greatest transgressor of people's rights is the Executive branch of government," the application stated.
"Giving primacy to the legislature and executive in the matter of judicial appointments to the superior judiciary will effectively deny the fundamental rights of the people and allow the parliament and executive to become judges in their own cause by selecting judges of their own choice."