PTI seeks delay in SC appointments over seniority row
ISLAMABAD: As concerns over judges’ seniority grow, opposition Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) Senator Barrister Syed Ali Zafar on Sunday urged Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi to postpone the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s (JCP) meeting scheduled for today (Monday).
The session is set to consider the elevation of eight more judges to the Supreme Court.
Mr Zafar’s letter came just two days after four SC justices urged the CJP to hold off on appointments until challenges to the 26th Amendment were resolved.
Mr Zafar, who represents PTI in the JCP alongside party chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, urged the chief justice to put on hold the commission’s meeting until the matter of seniority of judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) was decided and resolved.
If the commission still chooses to proceed with the meeting anyway, it should not at least consider any of the judges transferred to the IHC recently as eligible for appointment as the chief justice of the high court or the judge of the Supreme Court, Mr Zafar said in the four-page letter.
Ali Zafar writes to CJP, says Judicial Commission must act with ‘heightened care’ to uphold public trust
The senator stated that he was making this appeal as a matter of record in his role as a JCP member.
He highlighted that the JCP’s Feb 10 meeting would lead to the Supreme Court appointments, which could create a vacancy for the IHC chief justice. This, he argued, raised the crucial question of which judge would be eligible for the position based on seniority.
“Justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done,” he emphasised.
The recent issuance of the new seniority roster of IHC judges and the potential appointment of a new IHC chief justice has led to speculation regarding its timing and implications.
“There is a perception among the general public and many in the legal community that these developments may be linked to high-profile appeals filed by PTI founder Imran Khan and Mrs Imran Khan against their illegal convictions based on political victimisation, which are currently before IHC,” Mr Zafar said.
“In order to ward off such perceptions and uphold public trust, it is important for the JCP to act with heightened care, caution and transparency,” he said.
The lawmaker said comity among judges was of the utmost importance, noting the recent transfer of judges to IHC and the resulting controversy of seniority gave rise to objections.
As such, this action of transfer, if it results in a change of seniority of judges, may have serious impact on the comity of judges, he said. “It is not difficult to perceive a reality where the IHC will not now fall victim to deep and manifesting resentment between the judges,” he feared.
“The letter by sitting judges of the IHC confirms this apprehension. This too is likely to have an arresting effect on court functioning and the administration of justice.”
IHC judges’ seniority is particularly important due to its relevancy to their appointment as CJ, he said. Before the fresh roster, the three most senior existing high court judges were eligible for appointment as chief justice and SC judge.
After the new seniority roster has been issued, one of the transferred judges has become eligible for appointment as IHC CJ and SC judge. The government may, therefore, be able to appoint the transferred judge as IHC CJ or SC judge, to the exclusion of existing eligible judges of the IHC, Mr Zafar feared.
“It is necessary to ensure that the legitimate expectancy of the judges of the high courts to be treated fairly and in accordance with the Constitution and law,” he said, reminding that the Supreme Court in the Al-Jehad case had held that most senior judge of the high court has a legitimate expectancy to be appointed as the chief justice.
Recently, the commission enacted rules stating that the chief justice of a high court would be selected from the three most senior judges. Therefore, the most senior high court judges have a legitimate expectancy to be considered for appointment as chief justice upon attaining the requisite seniority.
The public perception of the recent transfers, particularly after the letters by the high court as well as Supreme Court judges, is that judges have been transferred to the IHC to disrupt the ranking of seniority to avoid the appointment of a chief justice from among the existing three most senior judges, Mr Zafar said.
In fact, two out of the five judges who were to be considered for appointment as chief justice upon a vacancy being created in the court have also perceived the move in a similar manner, he said.
“The effect of this transfer and the assignment of seniority done subsequent thereto has removed one sitting judge of the IHC from the list of three most senior judges,” he wrote.
“It is quite evident that this transfer and the issuance of the seniority roster violates the legitimate expectancy of not only these judges but also the other judges.”
Nominations for LHC
Meanwhile, in a separate development, the JCP has invited nominations for four vacancies of additional judges in the Lahore High Court (LHC) from Punjab’s district judiciary. Nominations are to be submitted by Feb 13.
The decision was made by CJP Yahya Afridi, who is also the JCP chairman, after consulting LHC Chief Justice Aalia Neelum. However, the date for the JCP meeting to consider these appointments has not yet been finalised.
Published in Dawn, February 10th, 2025