Islamabad:
Senior Puisne judge of the Supreme Court’s righteousness Syed Mansoor Ali Shah has warned that the expansion of the constitutional bench (CB) without solving the central legal challenge of the further undermining the legitimacy of the supreme court and elaborating on the ongoing institutional crisis.
“The Commission must wait until the constitution of the 26th constitutional amendment is decided by this court before dealing with issues that flow directly from it. Continuing with extensions or re-exploits to a constitutional bench whose very legal foundation is under serious constitution, further elaborates on the institutional crisis and weakens the legitimacy of the court,” wrote Justice Shah in a two-page letter. subjected judge in the judge of Pakistan (JCP).
A copy of the letter was also shared with all JCP members. However, the Commission ignored by the majority that justice Shah’s concerns and extended the term of office of the constitutional bench until November 30.
Justice Shah noted that his office had verbally informed the Secretary JCP on June 12 that he would not be available in Pakistan to attend the meeting scheduled for June 19.
“One would reasonably have expected that the meeting, due to the lack of accessibility of one of its members, would be exposed-Issær in accordance with previous practice where meetings have been postponed due to the inaccessibility of members representing the executive.
However, it seems that the meeting will continue as planned – perhaps because of the judiciary’s minority’s position in the Commission, “the letter reads.
Justice Shah also requested that his written submissions should be included in the official minutes of the JCP meeting as he would not be able to participate, even almost.
He emphasized that the Commission must acknowledge how the ongoing delay in resolving the Constitution of the 26th amodes erodes the credibility of the court and shakes the public’s confidence in its impartiality.
“It is both surprising and regrettable that the Commission rather than first by tackling the lawsuits – an act that in substance continues the disputed scheme introduced by just the change, rather than tackling the court – an act that in substance continues the disputed scheme introduced by precisely the change, instead of first tackling the legitimacy of the 26th change.
Justice Shah also warned against the growing influence of the commission’s exercise.
“It is imperative that the image of the court is not allowed to drive under control or convenience to the exercise, which now seems to have a disproportionate influence on JCP’s affairs.”
In pending the assessment of constitutional challenges, he suggested that all judges in the Supreme Court be nominated for the constitutional bench on a temporary basis.
“Any selective inclusion without a transparent process or identifiable criteria is obviously discriminatory and harmful to institutional harmony.”
Justice Shah emphasized the urgent need to develop formal criteria for the selection of judges for the constitutional bench before further constitution or extension takes place.
“The absence of objective standards makes past nominations vulnerable to the charges of cherry picking. This ad hocism has already thrown a long shadow on the legitimacy of the constitutional bench and continued exclusion of older judges for no reason worsening this view only.”
By tackling another topic on the JCP meeting’s agenda – related to the framework of rules under Article 175a (20) of the Constitution – Justice Shah claimed that no political decision should be made until the 26th amendment of amendment has been settled as it is currently being challenged in a number of clues.
Finally, he called for his concerns to be taken seriously.
“The strength of the judiciary rests on its credibility, its internal context and its true to constitutional principle – not on appropriate or executive preference. If the Commission is to maintain its institutional legitimacy, it must lead with integrity, transparency and collective wisdom.”
