Another member of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) has called on the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi to postpone the Commission’s scheduled meeting on February 10, 2025 until the Square Question In Islamabad High Court (IHC) Judge is resolved II compliance with law .

In his letter, Senator Ali Zafar has requested postponement of the scheduled meeting with reference to concern about the seniority dispute in the Islamabad High Court judges.

The letter also emphasizes that four Supreme Court judges have already requested postponement of the meeting. In addition, it mentions that the transfer of judges has changed the seniority list of IHC, which raises concerns that these transfers may be arranged to influence appeals related to PTI founder and Bushra Bibi.

Senator Ali Zafar suggested it would be appropriate to tackle the seniority problems before continuing with legal appointments.

In addition, he suggested that if the Commission insists on holding the meeting, the newly transferred judges should not be considered for appointment.

A few days ago, four judges at the Supreme Court in Pakistan demanded in a letter, demanding that he be appointed to the appointment of eight new judges to the Point Court until the challenges of the 26th amendment were decided.

The letter – signed by Senior Puisne – Judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justices Munib Akhtar, At Har Minallah and Ayesha Malik – were addressed to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Yahya Afridi.

The Legal Commission for Pakistan (JCP) is scheduled to meet on February 10 to consider filling out eight unemployed judge of judges by the Supreme Court. JCP approves legal appointments. It was reconstituted to include four MPs of the Constitution (twenty -five amendments), 2024, which brought several changes relating to the judiciary.

The Supreme Court’s constitutional bench has taken a number of challenges to the amendment.

“It is requested that the scheduled meeting and appointment of eight new judges … be postponed until the challenge to the 26th constitutional amendment is decided in one way or another, or at least until the constitutional bench decides the applications on the summons of a full court to flax and determine this challenge and until the issue of transferring judges to Islamabad High Court and their seniority is finally established on the legal side as we understand that such challenges have been launched, ”reads the letter.

The judges said that the “existing and continued situation and certain recent developments” had forced them to make the request. They pointed out that the challenges of the 26th amendment were lingering and falling before the constitutional bench.

“For various reasons, which for some are obvious to the point of being self -evident, these challenges were necessary to be dealt with by the full court that is urgent and immediately, and should therefore have been heard already.

“The request to convene a full court was brought to the post of some of us earlier. New judges are planned … surprising and rather soon before the next consultation date in the aforementioned questions before the constitutional bench.

The judges said the development could “further imperil and erode public confidence and confidence that was detained in the institution”.

They pointed out that public confidence in the judiciary is currently “decisive” on how affairs against the amendment were dealt with. “The induction of new judges, at this time, who are clearly recipients of the amendment, will weigh heavily on the wobbly public confidence that the institution has had today and unnecessarily make things more complicated,” they added.

“The dilemma that will be created if the meeting goes ahead to reach the declared goal can be stated as follows. If the constitutional bench accepts the applications and instructs the call of the full court to hear and decide the challenges of the amendment, the question will then inevitably arise who will constitute the full court for such a purpose.

“This is the case, because if eight new judges have at that time assumed Embed as proposed, it would create an anomal situation. At one time, the full court would include the new appointed among other things, give rise to a public view of court packing, Which would damage the image of the highest righteousness institution in the country with regard to its impartiality and independence.

“On the other view, the full court for the current purposes could only be the judges on the field at the time of the adoption of the amendment and still in office. But what some may claim would not be the full court. And claim that it Full court under the changing circumstances cannot sit at all to consider the challenges of the amendment.

The judges questioned why the court was placed in such a position, and “if the agenda and interests are earned in such a postponement of the right of outrage and maybe even we regret saying ridicule?” Why place the court on the horns in an avoidable dilemma? Is it therefore not imperative that the question of induction of new judges be reassessed and so far set to one side? These questions, we think, answer themselves. “

The four judges called for the point to carefully consider the full court’s timing and composition to maintain its integrity and credibility, which was not only the highest legal institution but for the entire justice system.

“Nevertheless, the meeting may exclude, if not effectively eliminating, precisely such an option. Any decision made by the full court if at all composed after the induction of new judges may well fail to command public trust And confidence.