Islamabad:
Since the leaders of all superior courts have agreed to develop a mechanism to end external interference, the debate has begun about how effective High Court SOPs will be in limiting foreign influence without judging the 26th constitutional change, which, upon admission, increased the influence of the exercise in legal appointments and selection of the constitutional (CBS).
National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee (NJPMC), which consists of all Chief Justices, praised the high courts on Monday for formulating SOPs – standard operating procedures – for legal independence. SOPS is expected to be notified soon.
Lawyers question how external interference can end when NJPMC members themselves are recipients of the executive influence in the judiciary.
There is a strong perception that neither a lawyer, without executive support, cannot be appointed a judge, and a judge in the Superior Court is increased to the point of point or a constitutional bench after the 26th constitutional amendment.
“There is an English moldsmin that fits perfectly here. It is when you close the stable door after the horse is bolted. Apart from here the horse not only bolted; the stable roof is also collapsed.
“Although I am glad that Justice Dogar from Islamabad High Court (IHC) was present in the meeting once to end the threat of external interference,” said Abdul Moiz Jaferii Advocate, while commenting on the NJPMC meeting to protect judges out of pressure.
Another lawyer asked how independence can be secured when judges who are not in the good books from the exercise have been sidelined and excluded from benches that heard important cases.
Previously further lawyer Waqar Rana said that interference is only a manifestation of undermining legal independence.
“Where agreements are subordinate to the exercise after the 26th amendment, the political announcement issued by the Supreme Court may unfortunately look like a charade to the legal community.
“Chief Justice, to truly secure the independence of the judiciary and stop interference, must take the first decaying brave step and indicate the case of the 26th amendment to the full court. Everything else will be considered window connection,” he added.
By taking advantage of the delay in assessing petitions against the 26th amendment, the executive authorities have successfully introduced more than three dozen judges in the high courts.
There is also a view that court packing of the high courts has already taken place. The situation has also changed in the peak right after the amendment.
Likewise, the executive transfer of judges from various high courts began to IHC. The real purpose of these transfers, critics say was to prevent a senior in -law from being high -ranked.
Although CJP Yahya Afridi had reservations about the seniority of the transferred judges, the performing performer managed to appoint Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar as IHC CJ.
Despite his efforts, CJP Afridi was unable to secure the approval of the Legal Commission in Pakistan (JCP) to appoint Justice Miangul Hassan as IHC chief.
Similarly, the public authorities opposed the appointment of the Senior Most Judges in Peshawar High Court and Balochistan High Court as Chief Justices because they were not “like-minded.”
Thus, the government succeeded, and the senior-most judges in both high courts were replaced by JCP for no valid reason.
Senior judges, including CJP Afridi, supported the vulnerable Lahore High Court Chief Justice Aalia Neelum to the Point Court. However, the government wanted her to continue as LHC CJ. The executive representatives in JCP did not vote for her height.
The current Sindh High Court Chief Justice Junaid Ghaffar has also not been elected to CB in High Court because the executives in JCP did not vote for him.
Most significantly, the executive of the two senior-most judges ignored the point of view of the appointment of CJP because they were not in line with the current regime.
Interestingly, NJPMC has approved a committee consisting of judges, the lawyer for Pakistan and the FBR chairman to tackle long -term litigation and orders in commercial, revenue and fiscal cases.
Questions are raised about the involvement of the FBR chairman of the committee. Recently, CJP Afridi met with the Minister of Finance to discuss tax related reforms.
It is an open secret that the overall judiciary has not dealt with external interference since six IHC judges wrote to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) last year. Since their letter, the judges have faced various forms of harassment with proxy complaints against them in SJC.
A senior lawyer said the surrender in the six judges’ letterbox laid the basis and the 26th constitutional amendment was a pure formality. When Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan was LHC CJ, he sent a report to SC on harassment by an ATC judge. The case is still pending in sc.
There is a need to assess the judiciary’s performance in the wake of the 26th amendment. The debate continues about CBS’s performance.
