ISLAMABAD: The PML-N government has made up its mind to amend the Constitution for the purpose of giving supremacy to the Parliamentary Committee over the Judicial Commission for the appointment of judges in superior courts.
While a parliamentary body is already working on the proposed amendment, the prime minister is said to have also shown his willingness to amend the Constitution to “improve” the procedure for appointment of judges.
What would be the precise shape of the proposed amendment is not yet known but there is a growing desire amongst the parliamentarians, including the government MPs, to give an effective say to the parliamentary committee in the judges appointment cases.
There are, however, apprehensions amongst different quarters that politicians sitting on both sides of the political divide may join hands to hit at the independence of the judiciary by compromising the appointment procedure.
The last PPP government had openly attacked the independent judiciary during its rule as the judges of the superior judiciary were considered a stumbling block in corruption, nepotism and bad governance of the then rulers. During the same regime, the work for changing the procedure for judges’ appointment had started.
The PML-N government, which came into power after the May 11, 2013 elections, also lost its complete love for an independent judiciary as the latter challenged several contentious decisions of the regime.
Now like the PPP, the PML-N is also enthusiastically reviewing the procedure for the appointment of judges.Former Supreme Court Bar Association President Yasin Azad had recently claimed in a press statement that during his one-on-one meeting with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the premier showed his willingness to strengthen the role of the parliamentary committee in the judges’ appointment process.
The two bodies were created by amending the Article 175-A of the Constitution through the 18th and 19th amendments. However, later both the parliamentarians and certain factions of the legal fraternity voiced their opposition to this procedure and wanted to give an upper hand to the parliamentary committee instead of the judicial commission. The argument is about the supremacy of parliament, which interestingly, has also been rejected by the apex court.
After the passage of the 18th Amendment, the Supreme Court sought certain changes in the Article 175, which deals with the appointment of judges. In its arguments, the Supreme Court had clearly said, “We have considered this argument in detail and find this view to be utterly against the newly-added provisions of the Constitution itself.
We cannot comprehend how this Parliamentary Committee, constituted under Article 175A, can even remotely be considered as a part of the legislature or how, for that matter, any question relating to the supremacy of parliament is involved in this case. The Judicial Commission and the Parliamentary Committee are two limbs of one constitutional mechanism created by the newly-added Article 175A. Both of them owe their existence to Article 175A and not to the provisions relating to the Legislature or the Executive in the Constitution.”
The SC further said: “As such, they are entirely new authorities constituted under Article 175A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Any authority created under a constitutional provision is bound to act within its specified mandate as per Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan. There is thus no immunity from judicial scrutiny reserved for the Committee under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and Article 69 has no application in the instant case. Indeed, none was claimed before us by the Federation.”
The SC added, “The constitution of the Judicial Commission itself and the members, comprising five sitting judges of the Supreme Court, one former judge of the Supreme Court, the chief justice and the most senior judge of the high court, federal minister for law and attorney general of Pakistan, law minister of the concerned province and two senior advocates/ members of the Bar, give us a clear insight into the reasons for the creation of the Commission.”
The SC, therefore, ruled that the parliamentary committee, on receipt of a nomination from the commission, can either confirm the nominee by a majority of its total membership within 14 days, failing which the nomination shall be deemed to have been confirmed, or reject the nomination on grounds falling within its domain for very strong reasons which shall be justiciable.
The SC judgment also noted that the 13 members of the commission are law-knowing and law related persons who can make an objective evaluation of the suitability of a nominee for judicial office. From members of the Parliamentary Committee, it is not expected that they will have the first hand information about a nominee or that they will have the same level of expertise as the commission, to evaluate the suitability of a nominee for appointment to high judicial office.
Govt to strip Judicial Commission of powers to select judges - thenews.com.pk
To sum it up the government will be able to appoint any judge into the Higher or Supreme courts.
While a parliamentary body is already working on the proposed amendment, the prime minister is said to have also shown his willingness to amend the Constitution to “improve” the procedure for appointment of judges.
What would be the precise shape of the proposed amendment is not yet known but there is a growing desire amongst the parliamentarians, including the government MPs, to give an effective say to the parliamentary committee in the judges appointment cases.
There are, however, apprehensions amongst different quarters that politicians sitting on both sides of the political divide may join hands to hit at the independence of the judiciary by compromising the appointment procedure.
The last PPP government had openly attacked the independent judiciary during its rule as the judges of the superior judiciary were considered a stumbling block in corruption, nepotism and bad governance of the then rulers. During the same regime, the work for changing the procedure for judges’ appointment had started.
The PML-N government, which came into power after the May 11, 2013 elections, also lost its complete love for an independent judiciary as the latter challenged several contentious decisions of the regime.
Now like the PPP, the PML-N is also enthusiastically reviewing the procedure for the appointment of judges.Former Supreme Court Bar Association President Yasin Azad had recently claimed in a press statement that during his one-on-one meeting with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the premier showed his willingness to strengthen the role of the parliamentary committee in the judges’ appointment process.
The two bodies were created by amending the Article 175-A of the Constitution through the 18th and 19th amendments. However, later both the parliamentarians and certain factions of the legal fraternity voiced their opposition to this procedure and wanted to give an upper hand to the parliamentary committee instead of the judicial commission. The argument is about the supremacy of parliament, which interestingly, has also been rejected by the apex court.
After the passage of the 18th Amendment, the Supreme Court sought certain changes in the Article 175, which deals with the appointment of judges. In its arguments, the Supreme Court had clearly said, “We have considered this argument in detail and find this view to be utterly against the newly-added provisions of the Constitution itself.
We cannot comprehend how this Parliamentary Committee, constituted under Article 175A, can even remotely be considered as a part of the legislature or how, for that matter, any question relating to the supremacy of parliament is involved in this case. The Judicial Commission and the Parliamentary Committee are two limbs of one constitutional mechanism created by the newly-added Article 175A. Both of them owe their existence to Article 175A and not to the provisions relating to the Legislature or the Executive in the Constitution.”
The SC further said: “As such, they are entirely new authorities constituted under Article 175A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Any authority created under a constitutional provision is bound to act within its specified mandate as per Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan. There is thus no immunity from judicial scrutiny reserved for the Committee under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and Article 69 has no application in the instant case. Indeed, none was claimed before us by the Federation.”
The SC added, “The constitution of the Judicial Commission itself and the members, comprising five sitting judges of the Supreme Court, one former judge of the Supreme Court, the chief justice and the most senior judge of the high court, federal minister for law and attorney general of Pakistan, law minister of the concerned province and two senior advocates/ members of the Bar, give us a clear insight into the reasons for the creation of the Commission.”
The SC, therefore, ruled that the parliamentary committee, on receipt of a nomination from the commission, can either confirm the nominee by a majority of its total membership within 14 days, failing which the nomination shall be deemed to have been confirmed, or reject the nomination on grounds falling within its domain for very strong reasons which shall be justiciable.
The SC judgment also noted that the 13 members of the commission are law-knowing and law related persons who can make an objective evaluation of the suitability of a nominee for judicial office. From members of the Parliamentary Committee, it is not expected that they will have the first hand information about a nominee or that they will have the same level of expertise as the commission, to evaluate the suitability of a nominee for appointment to high judicial office.
Govt to strip Judicial Commission of powers to select judges - thenews.com.pk
To sum it up the government will be able to appoint any judge into the Higher or Supreme courts.
