JCP appoints six new Supreme Court judges
The Judicial Commission of Pakistan has approved the appointment of six judges to the Supreme Court, including the elevation of the chief justices of three high courts, in a key decision expected to shape the country's judicial landscape.
Among the nominees are Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Hashim Khan Kakar, Sindh High Court Chief Justice Shafi Siddiqui, and Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq.
Their inclusion strengthens the Supreme Court's bench with experienced legal minds from across the country.
The approval follows deliberations within the commission, which is responsible for vetting and confirming judicial appointments.
The revamped JCP met on Monday. It was expanded through the 26th Constitutional Amendment.
The 13-memner JCP is led by the chief justice of Pakistan, and includes four judges of the apex court, as well as parliamentarians from both treasury and opposition and others.
The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) convened on Monday to consider the elevation of eight high court judges to the Supreme Court despite calls from some judges and sections of the legal community to defer the meeting.
In the last few days, four Supreme Court judges and five IHC judges, besides JCP member Senator Ali Zafar, wrote separate letters to Chief Justice Afridi to postpone the JCP meeting until decisions on the pending appeals against 26th Amendment and the new seniority list of the IHC judges.
The All Pakistan Lawyers Action Committee (APLAC), which represented the lawyers, who opposed the 26th Amendment, in a statement endorsed the demand of the four judges abouot postponement of JCP meeting and delaying the appointment of the new judges.
The statement, signed by several former presidents and office-bearers of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and other bars, including Muneer A. Malik, Hamid Khan, Ali Ahmed Kurd, Qazi Anwar, Abid Zuberi, vowed to defend the independence of the judiciary.
Meanwhile lawyers have been divided on the issue of elevating judges to the Supreme Court.
Some argued that the process should be postponed until the court challenges to the 26th Constitutional Amendment are resolved.
The lawyers staged a protest in the federal capital city that led to the suspension of Metro bus services on several routes between Islamabad and Rawalpindi, causing significant inconvenience to commuters.
Authorities also sealed off the sensitive Red Zone in the federal capital in response to the protest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
High courts run without permanent top judges
Following the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, adhocism appears to be growing across the superior judiciary. Despite the lapse of four months, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) has yet to convene a meeting to appoint permanent chief justices for the Sindh High Court, Peshawar High Court and Islamabad High Court. The Balochistan High Court also remained without a permanent chief justice for more than three months. On May 19, the JCP approved the appointment of Justice Muhammad Ejaz Swati as BHC chief justice, but only for a period of two weeks. He retired on June 5. Justice Rozi Khan Barech, who ranked second in the BHC's seniority list, has now been appointed acting chief justice. Similarly, Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar has been serving as acting chief justice of the Islamabad High Court for the past four months. His seniority is currently under challenge in the Supreme Court. While the litigation may explain the delay in appointing a permanent IHC chief justice, no clear reason exists for the prolonged delay in appointments for the other three high courts. Since the passage of the 18th Amendment, the JCP has not previously delayed the process of appointing permanent chief justices for the high courts. Under the new constitutional arrangement, the executive holds a dominant role in the appointment of judges to the superior judiciary. However, senior judges, particularly the Chief Justice of Pakistan, have made no serious effort to restore balance in the appointments process. During the tenure of the current CJP, Justice Yahya Afridi, approximately 50 judges have been appointed to the superior courts, with the executive playing a key role in nominating many of them. No judge can now become a permanent chief justice without the executive's support. The government has thus succeeded in maintaining "like-minded" acting chief justices in key high courts. With the backing of former CJP Qazi Faez Isa, the government previously managed to elevate Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan from the Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court, reportedly because he was not their preferred choice to lead the LHC. At present, the executive is reportedly reluctant to elevate incumbent LHC CJ Alia Neelum, as the Punjab government is said to be comfortable with the current provincial judiciary. It is also learnt that the executive remains indecisive regarding the appointment of a permanent chief justice for the Sindh High Court. "It is the PPP that will decide about the permanent chief justice of the SHC," a source added. Reports suggest that PPP legal minds are divided on the nomination for the next SHC chief justice. Similarly, Justice Syed Mohammad Attique Shah, who was second in the seniority list of PHC judges, has been appointed as acting chief justice of the Peshawar High Court. The appointment of a permanent PHC chief justice is being delayed for known reasons. Lawyers are increasingly vocal about the disregard for senior puisne judges of PHC and BHC in the appointment of acting chief justices. It is learnt that PHC judge Justice Ejaz Anwar is not in the good books of powerful circles. Therefore, despite his seniority, he was neither elevated to the Supreme Court nor appointed as acting chief justice. The same applies to Justice Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail, who, though appointed as acting chief justice, could not secure clearance from powerful circles. Reports also suggest that he is a victim of judicial politics, and his relationships with some senior judges are not cordial. The current situation indicates that both senior judges are unlikely to be appointed as permanent chief justices of their respective high courts. Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii commented on Islamabad, saying, "It is a way to continue the farce that is the new Dogar court. There's a bunch of good judges there, so let's keep them all hanging and distracted". Speaking on Sindh, Jaferii added, it has the effect of a perpetual carrot being dangled before the senior-most judges in the province. "Let's see what you can do to please uswithout us really asking you to do anything specific. By keeping the corner court empty, you keep everyone in the race. And when you don't know what you're racing for or how long the race is, you start running cautiously. That is good enough. And it is exactly what they want." Lawyers believe that senior judges, who are at the helm and beneficiaries of the 26th Amendment, must take steps to restore the institution, whose independence has been compromised for the past six months.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah becomes acting CJP in rare Eid day ceremony
Listen to article Senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, took oath as the Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan on Saturday, in an unprecedented ceremony held on Eid day at the Supreme Court's Lahore Registry. The oath was administered by Justice Ayesha A. Malik, marking a rare event where the swearing-in of the country's top judicial office took place outside the federal capital and on a public holiday. The ceremony was attended by Supreme Court judges Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. Advocate General Punjab Amjad Pervez, along with several senior members of the legal fraternity, was also present. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah will serve as Acting Chief Justice until June 10, during the absence of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, who is currently in Saudi Arabia to perform Hajj. Justice Isa is expected to resume his duties upon his return next week.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to sensitive social security data
The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen the morning before justices are expected to issue opinions in pending cases, in Washington, U.S., June 14, 2024. Photo:REUTERS Listen to article The US Supreme Court granted on Friday the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key player in President Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. On the request of the Justice Department, the judiciary had put on hold Maryland-based US District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing DOGE unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The top court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with DOGE. BREAKING: The Supreme Court grants DOGE affiliates access to Social Security Administration records. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson would deny the request. — SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 6, 2025 The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the order. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent that was joined by fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the court's majority for granting DOGE "unfettered data access" despite the administration's "failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards." In a separate order on Friday, the Supreme Court extended its block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by US President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. DOGE swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30. Two labor unions and an advocacy group filed suits to prevent DOGE from accessing sensitive data at the Social Security Administration (SSA), including social security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients including retirees and disabled Americans. Democracy Forward, a liberal legal group that represented the plaintiffs, said Friday's order would put millions of Americans' data at risk. "Elon Musk may have left Washington DC, but his impact continues to harm millions of people," the group said in a statement. "We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward." In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that SSA had been "ransacked" and that DOGE members had been installed without proper vetting or training. They demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Hollander in an April 17 ruling found that DOGE had failed to explain why its stated mission required "unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems". "For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records," Hollander wrote. "This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation." Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited DOGE staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with only narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling did allow DOGE affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Hollander also ordered DOGE affiliates to "disgorge and delete" any personal information already in their possession. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on April 30 to pause Hollander's block on DOGE's unlimited access to Social Security Administration records. Justice department lawyers in their Supreme Court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach. "The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access," they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which 4th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow DOGE to access data at the US Treasury and Education Departments and the Office of Personnel Management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against DOGE wrote that the case involving Social Security data was "substantially stronger" with "vastly greater stakes," citing "detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records," such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information.
