Islamabad:
A subcommittee of the Pakistan Judicial Commission (JCP) will meet on September 26 to prepare a draft rules for the annual judicial performance of the judges of the High Court.
The Committee of five members, chaired by judge Mandokhail, includes the attorney general of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, Senator Farooq H Naek (Treasury benches), Senator Ali Zafar (opposition benches) and the representative of the Council of the Pakistan Bar (PBC) Ahsan Bhoon.
Previously, the chief judge of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi had formed two committees directed by judge Mandokhail to prepare rules for the annual evaluation of the judicial performance of the judges of the High Court, as well as criteria for selecting judges for the constitutional benches (CBS).
On August 21, the majority of the members of the CB committee decided that the Constitution did not allow the adaptation of the criteria for selecting judges.
Now, the same members will meet on September 26 to write rules proposed to establish effective standards to assess the performance of high court judges.
The 26th constitutional amendment demanded that the JCP carry out annual assessments of the yield of high court judges. If a judge is considered ineffective, the Commission may grant an improvement period. If, after this period, the performance of the judge is still deemed unsatisfactory, the commission sends its report to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
Article 175A (20) also indicates that the Commission can establish separate rules to establish effective standards for the evaluation of the yield of high court judges.
This amendment, however, is disputed before the Supreme Court. Since January, the constitutional bench has not taken any petitions contesting the 26th amendment.
Source said that the Constitutional Bancs Committee, led by Judge Amicin Khan, had resolved that petitions would be heard shortly after the summer holidays. However, cases have not yet been listed.
Experts believe that the assessment of the yield of high court judges must strictly monitor the rules supervised under article 175A (20), be based on objective criteria and provide legally justiciable reasons.
They argue that, to guarantee the equity of the trial and the regular procedure – and to avoid any interference in judicial independence – the non -judicial members of the Commission should not have the right to vote or to participate in procedures concerning the evaluation of judges or the reference of reports to the SJC, in particular in cases where they can appear as complainants or defenders.
Before framing the rules, many lawyers insist that the judicial control of the 26th constitutional amendment is necessary. There is a dominant perception that the executive has a dominant role in the decision of the JCP.
Despite the presence of objective criteria, the government has so far been able to influence the appointment of judges of the Superior Court through the JCP. Even the selection of judges for the constitutional benches at the Supreme Court would have been shaped by the preferences of the executive.
Lawyers emphasize that it is important to examine whether the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers remain intact after the 26th amendment.
