In response to Supreme Court judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s letter on judges’ appointment, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s rule-making committee head has said that his suggestions have already been incorporated in the draft rules and agreed that judiciary members should be impartial.

“It is important to mention here that incidentally, most of the suggestions/requirements highlighted by you in the letter have already been incorporated in the draft rules, which, I had personally shared with you prior to your letter under reply,” Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said in a letter on Saturday.

On Friday, senior puisne judge of the SC Justice Shah called on the JCP to finalise “clear and transparent rules” for appointing judges to constitutional courts. In his detailed letter, he warned that any appointments without such a framework would be unconstitutional and could undermine the judiciary’s independence.

It was addressed to Justice Mandokhail. The apex court judge underscored the constitutional obligation under Article 175A(4), which requires the JCP to establish procedures and criteria for assessing and appointing judges. He was concerned that the absence of such rules jeopardises the rule of law, democracy, and public confidence in the judiciary.

Justice Shah also highlighted the “risks” posed by the 26th Constitutional Amendment that allows the executive to have a majority of members within the JCP. He was of the view that such a shift could lead to politically motivated appointments and undermine the ideological commitment of judges to the rule of law.

In his response, Justice Mandokhail mentioned the JCP committee’s two meetings. The committee also includes Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan, PTI Senator Syed Ali Zafar, PPP Senator Farooq Hamid Naek, and ASC Akhtar Hussain as members.

It has been tasked to draft rules relating to the regulation of procedure including the procedure and criteria for assessment, evaluation and fitness for appointment of judges under clause (4) of Article 175A of the Constitution.

While mentioning the meetings, the committee’s head said that he had shared suggestions or requirements with him prior to Friday’s letter.

“Please take note that the committee is tasked just to propose the draft rules and to place it before the commission for final approval of the same, in its forthcoming meeting to be held on December 21, 2024,” Justice Mandokhail said.

He suggested his fellow SC judge propose the candidates for their elevation to the Lahore High Court and Islamabad High Court after approval of the rules by the commission.

“I, however, appreciate and welcome your suggestions. Let me make it clear that I am also of a firm view that it is the mandate of the Constitution that the judiciary must be independent and impartial. Members of the judiciary should be competent and honest persons,” Justice Mandokhail said.

For such a purpose, he added that the committee constituted for making the draft rules was committed to evolving the “best mechanism” while framing such rules in order to achieve the desired goal. The SC judge assured Justice Shah that his suggestions would be considered in the next meeting scheduled for December 16 (Monday).

Also, read this

‘We won’t run away,’ says SC judge Justice Shah amid resignation speculation

In reply to Justice Shah’s letter on 26 Constitutional Amendment, CJP opposes full court formation

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah writes to Justice Yahya Afridi to form full court for 26th amendment case

Justice Mandokhail refrained from commenting on the issue raised regarding the 26th Constitutional Amendment because the “matter is sub judice” before the court.

“The institution of judiciary belongs to the citizens of Pakistan and I expect that every member of the commission will thoroughly go through the draft rules and is free to submit any suggestion before its approval,” it said.

He stated that the commission is “competent” to approve as it is, to amend or to reject the draft rules. “Waiting for any other suggestion by you before the cut-off date of framing of draft rules. I hope the concerns shown by you through your letter on my part are redressed.”