Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi has, as chairman of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) set up a committee to prepare an objective criterion for selecting judges for constitutional benches.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail leads the committee.

A notification issued in this regard stated that in the light of the President’s decisions during the three JCP meetings held on February 28, the committee has been composed of preparing objective criteria for appointing judges in accordance with par.

The committee consists of Justice Mandokhail as a head with the lawyer for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan, Senator Farooq Hamid Naek (Treasury Benches), Senator Syed Ali Zafar (opposition benches) and Pakistan wore Council representative Ahsan Bhoon. Niaz Muhammad Khan will act as secretary of JCP.

However, legal experts have questioned why the committee was not set up immediately after the adoption of the 26th amendment. Since the adoption of the amendment, the judges of SC and Sindh High Court’s constitutional benches have been appointed without a structured selection process.

SCS Senior Puisne, Judge, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, had previously urged to establish clear guidelines to nominate and determine the number of judges on constitutional benches.

“The Commission has already nominated and established a number of judges by the Supreme Court and Sindh High Court for CBS in the absence of mechanism or criteria in place,” a letter from nine-pages written by Justice Shah to JCP secretary said in December.

“Therefore, there has been no logic or reason to support the nomination and decision of the number of judges for CBS.”

Justice Shah claimed that nomination and determination according to articles 191A and 202A of the Constitution cannot occur in a vacuum, which emphasized that JCP must first establish an objective criterion through the proposed rules.

“The expansion of the existing CBS for the Supreme Court is coming up tomorrow. Therefore, it is tender and mandatory for JCP to formulate a mechanism and criteria for nomination and decision of the judges for the constitutional benches in the general interest of the public.”

Justice Shah suggested that the criteria could include the number of reported judgments from the judges on the interpretation of the Constitution, including inserts or further notes on constitutional law that has become the author of the judge, while they are part of a larger bench that hears important constitutional affairs.