JCP ‘approves’ two SC ad hoc appointments

The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) on Friday approved appointing two former Supreme Court judges – Justice (retd) Tariq Masood and Justice (retd) Mazhar Alam Miankhel – as ad hoc judges to the apex court for a period of one year, sources said. The development came after the JCP meeting headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa held earlier today to discuss the appointment of retired judges to the apex court in a bid to reduce pendency of the cases. It may be noted that Justice (retd) Miankhel had declined an offer to become an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court “due to personal reasons”, sources said ahead of the JCP huddle earlier today. He was the third judge to turn down the proposal. Before him Justice (retd) Mushir Alam and Justice (retd) Maqbool Baqar had also refused appointment as ad hoc judges, which the apex court said were needed to clear a backlog of cases. The sources said Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar and Justice Yahya Afridi opposed the appointment of Justice (retd) Miankhel as the former judge had already declined the offer. However, his appointment was approved by a 6:3 majority and now it is up to the former judge that he accepts the offer or maintains previous his stance, they added. Meanwhile, Justice (retd) Masood’s appointment was approved by 8:1 majority, with Justice Akhtar in opposition, the insiders added. It is also pertinent to mention that the former ruling party – Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) – had asked the JCP to turn down a proposal to hire ad hoc judges, saying the appointment would compromise the independence of the judiciary. The PTI has been raising concerns over the appointment of ad hoc judges, claiming that the move is aimed at targeting the party, while the government has supported the decision, saying it falls under the ambit of law. In a letter to the JCP members earlier in the day, PTI’s Omar Ayub said that he has “great concern” at the recent proposal to appoint ad hoc judges. Ayub noted that he was writing the letter as the matter of the appointment was not being presented before the parliament’s committee, therefore, PTI lawmakers did not have a platform to voice their concerns. “This is particularly so since the Opposition in the National Assembly and Senate, which may otherwise have had an opportunity of presenting its perspective in the Parliamentary Committee in the matter of appointment of judges, would not have any other opportunity of presenting its view in the matter of appointment of ad hoc judges.” In such a serious matter as the appointment of judges, Ayub said, there should not be any room to give any impression that the appointment of ad hoc judges in the Supreme Court is an attempt to affect the balance of opinions on judicial matters in the apex court against one political party. Regrettably, he said, the timing of the proposal for appointment of ad hoc judges, their proposed term of office, the number of judges sought to be appointed, and the arbitrary manner of their selection creates such a perception. “This is damaging to the standing of the Supreme Court in society, in which we are all stakeholders, and which must at all times be seen to be above the political fray,” the leader of the opposition in the NA said. He also noted that since the judges would be appointed for three years and the CJP himself was retiring in October, it would be better that the next top judge decides on such issues. Moving on, he said that the timing of the proposal for the appointment of four ad hoc judges by the CJP is also of serious concern as the proposal seems to have been floated on the very same day (i.e. July 12) that the full court announced an order in the matter of reserved seats in favour of the PTI by a majority of 8-5 (i.e. a margin of three judges). “It is also of great concern that there is no transparent criteria by which the names of the judges proposed for appointment has been selected. It may be noted that other retired judges of the Supreme Court who fulfil the criteria stated in the Constitution have not been proposed.” “Therefore, I would strongly urge the Chairman and the members of the JCP to reject the proposed appointment of ad hoc judges to the Supreme Court as that may cause perceptions to arise in the public of attempts to influence and affect the independence of the judiciary.”