The evaluation committee of each high court will share its performance report on judges with the JCP
ISLAMABAD:
The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) has moved closer to formalizing a framework for the annual performance appraisal of High Court judges, with a key committee reaching broad agreement on proposed rules aimed at setting measurable standards under Article 175-A (20) of the Constitution.
A meeting of the JCP committee, headed by Justice Aamir Farooq, was held on Tuesday to deliberate on the draft rules. Other members of the committee include Mansoor Awan, Ali Zafar and Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) representative Ahsan Bhoon.
The meeting continued for more than two hours.
It is learned that a consensus has been reached among the committee members on the proposed rules to evaluate the annual performance of High Court judges. However, a committee member told The Express PK Press Club that while agreement has been reached on several points, an additional meeting may still be required for formal approval.
According to the agreement reached so far, a proposed evaluation committee, comprising judicial members of the JCP, will assess the quality of High Court judges. Grades will be awarded on the quality and quantity of judicial decisions. Additionally, grades will also be awarded for punctuality, efficiency and records management.
It was further suggested that negative marks should also be awarded based on the conduct of judges.
Under the proposed mechanism, the evaluation committee of each high court will share its performance report on judges with the JCP, which will then take a final decision. However, it was recommended that complaints of misconduct should not be considered by evaluation committees.
Under the Constitution, if the JCP, by majority, decides that a particular judge is ineffective, the case will be referred to the Supreme Judicial Council to initiate misconduct proceedings against him or her.
A member of the JCP committee told The Express PK Press Club that numerical marks will be given to judges while evaluating their performance. The purpose of assigning figures, the MP said, is to ensure transparency in the evaluation process.
Meanwhile, the JCP is also holding meetings to consider the confirmation of 40 additional high court judges. Following the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, these judges were appointed to various high courts. There is a growing perception that the executive branch has assumed a dominant role in the nomination and confirmation of judges.
Lawyers say the confirmation of these 40 judges represents a major challenge for the chief justices, especially in an environment where the executive is seen as wielding decisive influence over the JCP’s decision-making.
JCP judicial members reportedly have reservations about confirming some additional judges. Observers say it will be crucial to see how the commission’s judicial members evolve their strategy in the current circumstances.
