by Nasir Iqbal in Dawn, 14 Dec 2020
ISLAMABAD: Though the nomination of prominent lawyers Babar Sattar and Tariq Jahangiri for the office of additional judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) sailed through the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) smoothly on Dec 3, the bi-partisan parliamentary committee may witness a stormy session over the issue when it meets on Dec 17.
Certain quarters are not happy with the nominations and it is expected that objections may be raised over the nominations in the meeting of the parliamentary panel, said a highly-placed source.
“It seems as if the entire system is opposed to independent minds,” the source feared, adding the elevation of one of the two lawyers as an IHC judge was being resisted since he was considered as someone who “thinks independently without being influenced by situations”.
The eight-member parliamentary committee is expected to meet at the Parliament House on Dec 17 at 2:30 pm. Its members are: Senators Farooq H. Naek of the PPP, Javed Abbasi of the PML-N, Azam Swati of the PTI, Sarfraz Bugti of the BAP and National Assembly members Raja Pervez Ashraf of the PPP, Rana Sanaullah of the PML-N and Ali Mohammad Khan and Mohammad Asim Nazeer of the PTI.
It is believed that foreign financial interests of Mr Sattar may catch attention of the parliamentary committee though the issue was discussed by the JCP and even by the antecedents’ committee led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial.
Mr Sattar is said to have six properties in the United States besides equity of Rs171 million in these properties for which he has taken mortgage against these assets. In addition, Mr Sattar is also a partner in two businesses in the United Arab Emirates.
A similar situation had also arisen when the elevation to the office of the IHC chief justice of then Justice Athar Minallah was discussed during a meeting of the parliamentary panel in Nov 2018.
There had been a feeling among the lawmakers that the May 2011 Supreme Court judgement in the Munir Hussain Bhatti case had virtually disturbed the equilibrium in favour of the JCP when the court ruled that the parliamentary committee should give reasons for not accepting recommendation of the commission about appointment of judges in the superior judiciary otherwise any objection would be considered as “unreasoned and arbitrary.”
The lawmakers believed that requirement in the verdict that the scrutiny process by the parliamentary committee should be meaningful and that the recommendations of the JCP would be considered if the panel failed to give its opinion on the appointments in 14 days needed to be corrected.
JCP meeting
The JCP is also meeting on Jan 12 to consider the appointment of 16 individuals as judges of the Lahore High Court (LHC).
The individuals are: Advocate General of Punjab Mohammad Shan Gul, Assistant Advocate General of Punjab Mohammad Tariq Nadeem, lawyers Barrister Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, Mohammad Sarfraz Cheema, Ali Zia Bajwa, Iftikhar Ahmad Mian, Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, Hassan Nawaz Makhdoom, Mohammad Asif Saeed Rana, Abid Hussain Chattha, Raheel Kamran Sheikh, Syed Intikhab Hussain Shah, Additional Prosecutor General Mohammad Amjad Rafiq and district and sessions judges Chaudhry Hamayun Imtiaz, Safdar Salim Shahid and Irfan Ahmad Saeed.
Currently 40 judges are working in the LHC against the sanctioned strength of 60 judges.
The JCP is considering the appointment of judges in the high court after a delay of two years.
With almost 200,000 pending cases, the LHC judges are overworked which is also affecting their health, according to the source.
He said the individuals being considered for elevation as judges might be summoned by the JCP during its meeting for consultation if any clarification was needed by the constitutional body.
However, it is not clear whether all lawyers will be called or only those against whom some queries will be needed to be clarified.
During the last meeting of the JCP, the need for a proper mechanism was felt so that candidates being considered for the posts of judges of superior judiciary may be available at a close proximity where the meeting is in progress. This will help seeking immediate explanation or clarification about a candidate if needed by the JCP during its meeting.
Earlier the JCP had considered names of 16 lawyers during its meeting in 2016 of whom eight were confirmed as additional judges. Similarly, a batch of another eight individuals was considered by the JCP in 2018 of whom one resigned after being appointed as additional judge and seven others were confirmed later as full judges of the LHC.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1595664/panel-may-oppose-elevation-of-two-lawyers-as-ihc-judges
