JCP to finalise criteria for HC judges, CBs
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi had earlier formed two committees led by Justice Mandokhail. Other members include Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, Senator Farooq H Naek (from treasury benches), Senator Ali Zafar (from opposition benches), and Pakistan Bar Council representative Ahsan Bhoon.
The first committee was to draft proposed rules to establish effective standards for the annual performance evaluation of high court judges under Article 175A(20) of the Constitution, inserted through the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
The CJP had constituted this committee during the JCP meeting on June 19.
Earlier, CJP Afridi had also formed a committee comprising the same members to draft an objective criterion for selecting judges for constitutional benches.
A notification issued in this regard stated that, in light of the chairperson's decisions during three JCP meetings held on February 28, the committee was tasked with drafting objective criteria for the appointment of judges under Clause (4) of Article 175A of the Constitution and for the selection of judges for constitutional benches under Articles 191-A and 202-A.
Interestingly, the JCP had decided to form a rules committee in January, and CJP Yahya Afridi issued its notification on March 4. However, the committee has not held any meeting for the last five months.
Legal experts have since questioned why the committee was not constituted immediately after the passage of the 26th Amendment. Since its enactment, judges for the Supreme Court and Sindh High Court's constitutional benches have been appointed without a structured selection process.
The government, however, has been fully satisfied with the performance of the Supreme Court's constitutional benches, which endorsed the trial of civilians in military courts, approved the transfer of judges from different high courts to the Islamabad High Court, and annulled the reserved seats decision that had declared the PTI entitled to reserved seats after the 2024 general elections.
Meanwhile, the constitutional bench has yet to take up petitions challenging its very creation. Lawyers have also raised questions about the wisdom and logic behind the nomination of a particular set of judges for constitutional benches, pointing out that judges perceived as critical of the present regime are often excluded.
Advocate Rida Hosain expressed surprise that a judge elevated only a few days ago could be nominated to a constitutional bench, while several senior Supreme Court judges with extensive constitutional expertise were not. In the absence of clear criteria, she noted, such nominations appear arbitrary.
Soon after the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, SC senior puisne judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah had called for establishing clear guidelines for nominating and determining the number of judges on constitutional benches.
"The commission has already nominated and determined a number of judges of the Supreme Court and the Sindh High Court for the CBs in the absence of any mechanism or criteria in place," Justice Shah wrote in a nine-page letter to the JCP secretary in December last year.
"Therefore, there has been no logic or reason backing the nomination and determination of the number of judges for the CBs." Justice Shah stressed that nominations under Articles 191A and 202A of the Constitution cannot be made in a vacuum, and that the JCP must first establish objective criteria through the proposed rules.
He suggested that such criteria could include the number of reported constitutional judgments authored by a judge, including dissents or additional notes, while serving on larger benches that heard significant constitutional cases.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Forces regain extended detention powers with Senate nod
The Pakistan armed forces reiterated their commitment to eradicating terrorism, emphasising their solidarity with the nation in this ongoing fight. SCREENGRAB Following its passage in the National Assembly, the Senate on Tuesday approved the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Bill 2025, restoring powers that allow law enforcement agencies and the armed forces to detain suspects for up to three months, a move that sparked uproar from the opposition benches. Minister of State for Interior and Narcotics Control Muhammad Talal Badar tabled the bill, which amends sub-section (1) of Section 11EEEE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. According to the amendment, "the government or, where the provisions of Section 4 have been invoked, the armed forces or civil armed forces for a period not exceeding three months and after recording reasons thereof, issue order for the preventative detention of any person." The bill states that persons suspected of activities against national security, including target killing, kidnapping for ransom and extortion, can be detained for three months, adding that it applies "against whom sufficient grounds exist of his having been so concerned, for purpose of inquiry". Detentions extending beyond this threshold will be subject to Article 10 of the Constitution, which provides safeguards with respect to arrest and detention. Under the new arrangement, if a detention order is issued by the army or civil forces, the investigation will be handled by a joint investigation team. "The inquiry will be conducted by no police officer below the rank of Superintendent of Police, Intelligence agencies, civil armed forces, armed forces, and other law enforcing agencies," the bill adds. While JUI-F's Senator Kamran Murtaza attempted to move amendments, they were rejected by majority vote as the House passed the law clause-by-clause. According to its statement of objects, the current security outlook requires "a robust response that goes beyond the existing legal framework". The bill explains that previous powers under Section 11EEEE, which lapsed in 2016 due to a sunset clause, needed to be "re-inserted to empower the government, Armed Forces and Civil Armed Forces with the necessary authority to detain individuals who pose a significant threat to national security". The government contends the provision would allow for preventive detention based on credible information or reasonable suspicion, enabling authorities to disrupt terror plots before they mature. 'Urgency must not eclipse wisdom' Defending the legislation, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar told senators, "Currently, the country is facing the menace of terrorism and amendments proposed by Syed Naveed Qamar have already been incorporated to make it more effective." He pointed out the bill had passed judicial scrutiny and included a three-year sunset clause. He further clarified that under Clause 2 of the amendment, the detainee would have presented before the Magistrate within 24 hours. However, PTI's Barrister Syed Ali Zafar urged caution, stating: "Some of its clauses are against the law and Constitution, so the bill should be referred to the committee." "Today we are being asked to amend one of the most powerful — and most controversial — laws in our statute book: the Anti-Terrorism Act," the opposition lawmaker said, adding that the law first came into being under extraordinary circumstances to protect Pakistan from extraordinary threats. "But as lawmakers, we must always remember: every extraordinary power given to the state can both be used and misused," he cautioned. He acknowledged that the anti-terrorism act was made to get rid of the menace of terrorism, which had destroyed the peace of the nation. "There is no doubt that we have to eradicate terrorism from the country and punish the terrorists. There is also no doubt that we will fight against terrorism till the last and that together we will win this battle." However, he cautioned that "urgency must not eclipse wisdom". Barrister Ali Zafar further pointed out that the Supreme Court had examined the provisions of the existing anti-terrorism act and decided that many of its provisions were against the constitution. "It was only after that that the present law was passed, and hence there is no room for any changes in it. By adding any provision in the existing law and making it more draconian, it will only become unconstitutional." He lamented that the amendment proposes that even an SHO and detain anybody for a period of three months in prison, and the person in prison will have no recourse to the courts. "The government can call anyone a terrorist on the grounds of public order and imprison them," he warned. "We must ask ourselves: will this amendment make Pakistan safer, or will it weaken the constitutional rights we swore an oath to protect?" "Our duty is twofold: on the one hand, to protect the lives of our citizens from the scourge of terrorism; on the other, to defend those constitutional freedoms without which Pakistan cannot remain a democratic state," he stressed. "We have to do a balancing act. Security will have to be balanced against liberty and power against accountability," he added. 'No softness toward militancy' PML-N Senator Irfanul Haque Siddiqui argued that no softness could be shown toward armed militancy. "We do not want terrorists roaming freely while innocent people are slaughtered... These acts weaken our federation and create mistrust between the people and the state." He said lawmakers must either surrender to militants or legislate to resist them, arguing such measures can "prevent crime and also curb forced disappearances and arbitrary detentions". Siddiqui appealed for viewing anti-terror legislation in good faith rather than as a political stick, stressing the need for transparent government-opposition communication with the public and media.
Express Tribune
11 hours ago
- Express Tribune
JCP to finalise criteria for HC judges, CBs
Meetings of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) subcommittees led by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail have been scheduled for August 21 to prepare draft rules for the annual judicial performance evaluation of high court judges, as well as criteria for the selection of judges for constitutional benches. Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi had earlier formed two committees led by Justice Mandokhail. Other members include Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, Senator Farooq H Naek (from treasury benches), Senator Ali Zafar (from opposition benches), and Pakistan Bar Council representative Ahsan Bhoon. The first committee was to draft proposed rules to establish effective standards for the annual performance evaluation of high court judges under Article 175A(20) of the Constitution, inserted through the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The CJP had constituted this committee during the JCP meeting on June 19. Earlier, CJP Afridi had also formed a committee comprising the same members to draft an objective criterion for selecting judges for constitutional benches. A notification issued in this regard stated that, in light of the chairperson's decisions during three JCP meetings held on February 28, the committee was tasked with drafting objective criteria for the appointment of judges under Clause (4) of Article 175A of the Constitution and for the selection of judges for constitutional benches under Articles 191-A and 202-A. Interestingly, the JCP had decided to form a rules committee in January, and CJP Yahya Afridi issued its notification on March 4. However, the committee has not held any meeting for the last five months. Legal experts have since questioned why the committee was not constituted immediately after the passage of the 26th Amendment. Since its enactment, judges for the Supreme Court and Sindh High Court's constitutional benches have been appointed without a structured selection process. The government, however, has been fully satisfied with the performance of the Supreme Court's constitutional benches, which endorsed the trial of civilians in military courts, approved the transfer of judges from different high courts to the Islamabad High Court, and annulled the reserved seats decision that had declared the PTI entitled to reserved seats after the 2024 general elections. Meanwhile, the constitutional bench has yet to take up petitions challenging its very creation. Lawyers have also raised questions about the wisdom and logic behind the nomination of a particular set of judges for constitutional benches, pointing out that judges perceived as critical of the present regime are often excluded. Advocate Rida Hosain expressed surprise that a judge elevated only a few days ago could be nominated to a constitutional bench, while several senior Supreme Court judges with extensive constitutional expertise were not. In the absence of clear criteria, she noted, such nominations appear arbitrary. Soon after the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, SC senior puisne judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah had called for establishing clear guidelines for nominating and determining the number of judges on constitutional benches. "The commission has already nominated and determined a number of judges of the Supreme Court and the Sindh High Court for the CBs in the absence of any mechanism or criteria in place," Justice Shah wrote in a nine-page letter to the JCP secretary in December last year. "Therefore, there has been no logic or reason backing the nomination and determination of the number of judges for the CBs." Justice Shah stressed that nominations under Articles 191A and 202A of the Constitution cannot be made in a vacuum, and that the JCP must first establish objective criteria through the proposed rules. He suggested that such criteria could include the number of reported constitutional judgments authored by a judge, including dissents or additional notes, while serving on larger benches that heard significant constitutional cases.
Express Tribune
11 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Govt mulls military courts appeal law
The federal government has begun consultations on a piece of legislation to grant ordinary citizens the right to appeal against trials in military courts, reliable sources revealed. On May 7, 2025, a seven-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, in a majority verdict, upheld the military trials of those accused in the May 9 cases and also restored the relevant provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 — provisions that had been voided by an SC bench in October 2023. The court ruling further stated that parliament must legislate within 45 days to ensure that ordinary citizens facing court-martial proceedings are given the right to freely appeal before high courts. Former chief justice of Pakistan Jawwad S Khawaja, who is also a party in the main case, later filed a contempt petition against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, arguing that no legislation had been passed to grant the right of appeal in violation of the court order. A highly reliable source told The Express Tribune that the government has now initiated consultations to provide the right of appeal to civilians convicted by military courts. According to sources, after the consultation process, a bill will be introduced to give the right of appeal before high courts. The ruling coalition now holds a two-thirds majority in parliament. The civil and military leaders of the country decided to refer cases of over 100 people who allegedly took active part in attacking military installations in the wake of former prime minister Imran Khan's first arrest from the premises of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on May 9, 2023. The PTI and a number of other petitioners including ex-CJP Khawaja approached the Supreme Court against trial of civilians in military courts and a SC full-court on October 23, 2023 not only declared these trial illegal by a majority vote but also annulled some provisions of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952.
