<<CJP ‘contravening the Constitution’, showing ‘favouritism’ and ‘discrimination’>>
<<Letter to CJP>>
Supreme Court Judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa has raised objections over the summoning of a Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) meeting regarding the appointment of five apex court judges nominated by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial.
In his letter, to JCP Chairman and other members, Justice Isa has requested that “the JCP meeting should be postponed. Instead,Justice Isa said it was surprising that the JCP’s meeting had been convened to consider the appointment of five SC judges during summer vacations.
Justice Isa stated in the letter that “while on my annual leave I received a Whatsapp message from the Additional Registrar of the Supreme Court informing me that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan has convened a meeting of the JCP on 28 July 2022 to consider appointing five judges to the SC.
“When availing of annual leave no meeting of the JCP was scheduled but as soon as I left Pakistan the CJP decided to hold two meetings of the JCP to consider appointments to the Sindh and Lahore High Courts, and now a third unscheduled meeting of the JCP is to be held during the summer vacations of the SC.
summer vacations of the SC were notified by the CJP himself, and then these were gazetted in the Official Gazette. If the CJP renders his own notification utterly meaningless then let him first withdraw it, instead of violating it.”“A factor which the CJ mentions as a disqualifying factor for being chosen is the delay in writing judgements. High Courts judges have far more work assigned to them as compared to SC judges. If this is a criterion, and there is nothing wrong with it, let us also self-reflect and do a little self-accountability. CJ should order a survey of SC judges to ascertain (1) how long the CJ and each judge takes on average to write judgments, (2) how many cases are disposed of through ‘short orders’, (3) how long after does it take for detailed reasons to come and (4) how many are still awaited. I may mention that malaise of ‘short orders’ is a novelty; Article 189 of Constitution mentions ‘decisions’ of the SC, ‘short orders’ are an invention not sanctioned by the Constitution,” the letter stated.
kind of power exercised by CJ is not permitted by Constitution. CJ arbitrarily and unilaterally decided: (1) the number of judges to be appointed, (2) the High Court from which they should be taken, (3) considered judges upto a particular number, (4) gave his preemptive opinion on who the best candidates are, (5) put up for consideration to JCP only his preselected candidates, (6) formulated a questionnaire soliciting information, which included compelling serving judges to disclose their financials (ironically CJ refused to do so himself when SC received a written request for information pursuant to Article 19A of the Constitution) and (7) sought medical information in derogation of the constitutional protection of privacy and dignity,” added letter.
