Islamabad:
A UNDERSTAND FOR THE JUDICIAL COMMUSION OF PACISTAN (JCP) will meet on September 26 to prepare draft rules for the annual judicial performance evaluation of the Supreme Court judges.
The Five Members Committee, President of Justice Mandokhail, includes the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, Senator Farooq H Naek (from Treasury Benches), Senator Ali Zafar (from opposition benches) and Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Representative Ahsan Bhoon.
Earlier, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi had formed two committees led by Justice Mandokhail to draw up draft rules for the annual judicial performance evaluation of the Supreme Court’s judges and criteria for the selection of judges for the constitutional benches (CBS).
On August 21, most of the members of the CB Committee decided that the Constitution does not allow it to frame criteria for the selection of judges.
Now the same members meet again on September 26 to prepare proposed rules for establishing effective standards for evaluation of the Supreme Court judge.
The 26th Constitutional amendment ordered JCP to conduct annual performance evaluations of the Supreme Court’s judges. If a judge turns out to be ineffective, the Commission may provide a period for improvement. If the judge’s performance after this period is still considered unsatisfactory, the Commission will send its report to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
Article 175a (20) also states that the Commission may prepare separate rules for establishing effective standards for the performance evaluation of the Supreme Court judges.
However, this change is under challenge to the Supreme Court. Since January, the constitutional bench has not taken petitions that challenge the 26th amendment.
The source said that the constitutional bench committee, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, had solved that the petitions would be heard shortly after the summer holidays. However, the cases are not yet listed.
Experts believe that the performance evaluation of the Supreme Court’s judges must strictly follow rules framed under Article 175a (20), be based on objective criteria and give reasons that are legally retreated.
They claim that in order to ensure justice in the trial and proper process and to avoid any interference in the court’s independence-keeping members of the Commission not having voting rights or participating in the case of evaluation of judges or referrals to SJC reports, especially in cases where they may appear as litigation or adocates.
Before framing the rules, many attorneys insist that judicial review of the 26th constitutional amendment is necessary. There is a prevailing view that the exercise has a dominant role in JCP’s decision making.
Despite the presence of objective criteria, the government has so far been able to influence the appointment of Superior Court judges through JCP. Even the selection of judges for constitutional benches in the Supreme Court is said to be shaped by executive preferences.
Attorneys emphasize that it is important to investigate whether the independence of the judiciary and the separation of power remain intact after the 26th amendment.
