The Evaluation Committee of each Supreme Court shares its performance report on judges with the JCP
ISLAMABAD:
The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) has moved closer to formalizing a framework for the annual performance evaluation of Supreme Court judges, with a key committee reaching broad agreement on proposed rules aimed at setting measurable standards under Article 175-A of the Constitution (20).
A meeting of the JCP committee, chaired by Justice Aamir Farooq, was held on Tuesday to discuss the draft rules. Other members of the committee include Mansoor Awan, Ali Zafar and Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) representative Ahsan Bhoon.
The meeting continued for more than two hours.
It is learned that agreement has been reached among committee members on the proposed rules for evaluating the annual performance of high court judges. However, a member of the committee told The Express Pakinomist that while agreement has been reached on several points, one more meeting may still be needed for formal approval.
According to the understanding reached so far, a proposed evaluation committee consisting of judges from the JCP will assess the quality of Supreme Court judges. Marks will be awarded for both the quality and quantity of judicial decisions. In addition, marks will also be given for punctuality, efficiency and case management.
It has further been suggested that negative marks should also be awarded based on the conduct of judges.
Under the proposed mechanism, the Appraisal Committee of each High Court will share its performance report on judges with the JCP, which will then make a final decision. However, it has been recommended that complaints of misconduct are not dealt with by the Review Committees.
According to the constitution, if the JCP decides by a majority that a particular judge is ineffective, the case will be referred to the Supreme Judicial Council to initiate misconduct proceedings against them.
A member of the JCP committee told The Express Pakinomist that numerical points will be awarded to judges during the evaluation of their performance. The purpose of allotting numbers, the member said, is to ensure transparency in the evaluation process.
Meanwhile, the JCP is also holding meetings to consider the confirmation of 40 additional judges of the High Courts. After the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, these judges were appointed to various Supreme Courts. There is a growing perception that the executive has assumed a dominant role in the appointment and confirmation of judges.
Lawyers believe that the confirmation of these 40 judges poses a major challenge to the chief justices, especially in an environment where the executive branch is seen to exert decisive influence on the JCP’s decision-making.
There are reports that judicial members of the JCP have reservations about the confirmation of some of the additional judges. Observers say it will be crucial to see how the judicial members of the commission develop their strategy under the prevailing circumstances.
