Islamabad:
While the heads of all the higher courts have agreed to evolve a mechanism to put an end to external interference, the debate began to know the effectiveness of the high court sops in the reduction of foreign influence without concluding the 26th constitutional amendment, which, by admission, increased the influence of the manager in the judicial notifications and the selection of constitutional benches (CBS).
The National Judicial Committee (Politics) (NJPMC), including all the main judges, congratulated the high lessons on Monday for the formulation of sops – standard operational procedures – for judicial independence. SOPs should be informed soon.
Lawyers wonder how external interference can end when the members of the NJPMC themselves are beneficiaries of the executive influence in the judiciary.
There is a strong perception according to which, without executive support or a lawyer cannot be appointed judge and a judge of the Superior Court cannot be raised to the Supreme Court or to a constitutional bench after the 26th constitutional amendment.
“There is an English idiom that fits perfectly here. It is when you close the stable door after the horse bounded. Except that here, the horse has not only bolted; the stable roof has also collapsed.
“Although I am happy that the Dogar judge of the High Court of Islamabad (IHC) is present at the meeting which decided once and for all to end the threat of external interference,” said Abdul Moiz Jaferii Advocate, while commenting on the NJPMC meeting to safeguard the judges of external pressure.
Another lawyer asked how independence can be guaranteed when the judges were not in the right books of the executive were sidelined and excluded from the benches hearing important cases.
Former additional prosecutor Waqar Rana said that interference is only a manifestation of undermining judicial independence.
“When the appointments are subordinate to the executive after the 26th amendment, the political notification issued by the Supreme Court can unfortunately resemble a charade of the legal community.
“The chief judge, in order to really ensure the independence of the judiciary and to stop interference, must take the first courageous step late and list the case of the 26th amendment to the full court. Everything else will be considered as a window basket,” he added.
Taking advantage of the delay in the petitions of judgment against the 26th amendment, the executive authorities succeeded more than three dozen judges before the high lessons.
There is also a perception that the High Court of High Court has already taken place. The situation also changed before the Supreme Court after the amendment.
Likewise, the executive launched the transfer of judges of different high lessons to the IHC. The real objective of these transfers, according to criticism, was to prevent a principal judge from becoming a chief IHC.
Although the CJP Yahya Afridi has reserved the seniority of the transferred judges, the executive managed to appoint judge Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar as CJ IHC.
Despite its efforts, the CJP Afridi could not obtain the approval of the Pakistan Judicial Commission (JCP) for the appointment of judge Miangul Hassan as CIH chief judge.
Likewise, government authorities opposed the appointment of the highest judges of the High Court of Peshawar and the High Court of Balutchistan as the main judges because they were not “sharing the same ideas”.
The government has succeeded and the highest judges of high lessons have been replaced by the JCP for no valid reason.
The superior judges, including the CJP Afridi, supported the breeding of the chief judge of the High Court of Lahore, Aalia Neelum, at the Supreme Court. However, the government wanted it to continue as LHC CJ. The executive representatives of the JCP did not vote for its elevation.
The chief judge of the high court of the Sindh, judge Ghaffar, was not selected for the CB before the high court because the executive representatives of the JCP did not vote for him.
More importantly, the executive ignored the two highest judges of the Apex court for the appointment of the CJP because they were not aligned with the current regime.
Interestingly, the NJPMC approved a committee including the judges, the Pakistan Attorney General and the President of the FBR to approach extended litigation and injunctive orders in commercial, income and tax affairs.
Questions are raised on the inclusion of the President of the FBR within the Committee. Recently, the CJP Afridi met the Minister of Finance to discuss tax -related reforms.
It is a secret of Polichinelle that the superior judicial power has failed to deal with the external interference since six IHC judges wrote to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) last year. From their letter, the judges have been faced with different forms of harassment, with complaints by proxy filed against them in the SJC.
A principal lawyer said that the surrender in the case of the letter of the six judges threw the foundation and that the 26th constitutional amendment was just a simple formality. When Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan was CJ of the LHC, he sent a report to SC concerning the harassment of an ATC judge. The case is still pending in SC.
It is necessary to assess the performance of the judiciary following the 26th amendment. The debate continues on the performance of the CBS.
