TLDR:
Judges’ appointment rules spark legal debate
Concerns over judiciary’s independence raised
Political influence feared in court appointments
Islamabad (The Thursday Times) — Pakistan’s judiciary faces rising tensions as Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail responds to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s concerns over judicial appointment rules. The exchange highlights fears of political interference and the erosion of judicial independence following the 26th constitutional amendment.
Judiciary’s independence questioned amidst new rules
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, head of the Supreme Court’s Rules Committee, responded to a letter from senior judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah regarding judicial appointments. Justice Mandokhail emphasised his commitment to an independent judiciary and assured that the rules under discussion aim to ensure merit-based and transparent appointments. However, Justice Shah’s letter pointed to the growing influence of the executive branch in judicial nominations since the 26th constitutional amendment. The amendment, he argued, disrupted the balance of power, increasing the risk of politically motivated appointments.
Justice Mandokhail refrained from commenting on the 26th amendment, citing its pending status before the courts. His focus, he stated, remains on drafting robust rules to prevent undue interference in judicial matters.
Fears of political interference grow
Justice Shah’s letter described the judiciary as facing unprecedented challenges, warning of increased executive influence in judicial appointments. He raised concerns that without clear rules, politically biased judges could undermine public trust in the judiciary. He stressed that any appointments made without approved procedures would be unconstitutional, urging the Rules Committee to act swiftly to finalise transparent mechanisms.
The letter also highlighted the potential risks of political interference, stating that unchecked powers might lead to appointments that prioritise ideology over the rule of law. These concerns resonate with legal experts who have long cautioned against the judiciary becoming a tool for political agendas.
Rules committee seeks consensus
The Rules Committee, led by Justice Mandokhail, has already held discussions to draft the judicial appointment rules. Justice Mandokhail revealed that several of Justice Shah’s suggestions were incorporated into the initial drafts. He encouraged continued dialogue to refine the framework further, urging all stakeholders to submit recommendations for consideration.
Justice Mandokhail also advised Justice Shah to wait for the rules’ approval before proposing specific candidates for judicial positions. This move, he argued, would ensure alignment with the new procedures and maintain institutional credibility.
the role of the 26th amendment
The 26th constitutional amendment restructured the Judicial Commission, granting the Chief Justice the authority to form committees for rule-making. While this empowered the judiciary in some respects, critics argue it also opened the door for executive influence. Justice Shah expressed concern that this shift disrupted the delicate balance between the judiciary and the executive, threatening the judiciary’s independence and the integrity of the legal system.
The Rules Committee now faces the challenging task of addressing these issues through procedural clarity. Its outcomes will shape the future of Pakistan’s judiciary and its ability to uphold democratic principles.