Following criticism by two senior judges, the Supreme Court (SC) has released the audio recording of a meeting held by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to discuss the nomination of five judges for elevation to the SC.
The meeting took place on Thursday, and involved Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial — who is also the JCP Chairperson— Justice Ijal-ul-Ahsan, Justice Tariq Masood, Justice Qazi Isa Faez and Attorney General for Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf Ali.
It was revealed on Thursday that the JCP had rejected the five nominees put forward by the CJP and a press release by the SC stated the members had decided to defer the meeting.
“The JCP Chairperson has decided defer the meeting in order to enable the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan to place additional information and data about those already proposed and if he considers appropriate, add more names to the list of proposees for consideration by the JCP,” said the statement.
However, following the issuance of the statement, Justice Isa and Justice Masood wrote letters to the JCP contesting what the official press release had said, and demanded that minutes of the meeting be made public.
As a result of this criticism, the CJP relaxed the rules of the JCP and released the two hour audio recording of the session.
The released audio has stirred up a storm on social media, with many questioning the method of judicial appointment in the country.
One thing is clear from the #JudicialCommissionofPakistan voice recording is that very little work goes into the appointment of #judges of the #SupremeCourt.We really need a concrete, thorough and transparent process, and not slipshod decisions made in 1 meeting with little info
— Yaqoob Khan Bangash (@BangashYK) July 30, 2022
The best example of disaster that occurs if analysis is reduced to numbers is how it has brought all 3 of the nominees from the SHC at some form of par with each other. Any system which ranks J Rizvi, J Siddiqui & J Phulpoto at par, is fit only to make jokes, not judges.
— Abdul Moiz Jaferii (@Jaferii) July 30, 2022
According to CJP Umar Ata Bandial, Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf had recommended that matters under discussion deferred to frame the appropriate rules and he didn't or assess or reject the merits of any of the High Court Judges proposed for appointment to the SCP.
— Sabih Ul Hussnain (@SabihUlHussnain) July 29, 2022
3. Second, discussions of members of JCP assessing candidate also reveals subjective considerations. More weight placed on personal knowledge then on data/info supplied by CJ. Risk: creeping subconscious biases; incorrect criteria;culture of schmoozing to gain personal notice.
— Mian Sami ud-Din (@miansamiuddin) July 30, 2022
5. Fourth, discussion of criteria – no mention of female representation. Concerns have been raised in public n advocated by @WomenInLawPk n others. Remarkable that even lip service was not paid to it by JCP. Risk: lack of female rep; loss of diverse views; discrimination.
— Mian Sami ud-Din (@miansamiuddin) July 30, 2022
7. Sixth, parliamentary committee views were not respected. JCP in past consistently overruled any decisions by PC rather than disagreeing only in exceptional circumstances.Risk: role of a constitutional body made redundant; input/check from other organ of the state disregarded.
— Mian Sami ud-Din (@miansamiuddin) July 30, 2022
However, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood clearly disapproved all the CJP nominations while stressing on the need to defer the process of appointment until the matter relating to the seniority principle of CJ of Peshawar High Court is decided.2/5
— Abdul Qayyum Siddiqui (@QayyumReports) July 29, 2022
Were all members of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan consulted before the audio was released by the Supreme Court?
And does the JCP chairman need to seek permission?
— Benazir Shah (@Benazir_Shah) July 30, 2022
I culled a couple of things from the audio clip of the JCP Meeting:
(1) those in favour of the CJP’s proposed nominations had nothing to add except that the CJP is right.
(2) Justice Sardar Tariq Masood was well equipped with facts and figures – others couldn’t controvert
— Hassan Ali Raza (@Hassanaraza1985) July 30, 2022
But the 2nd PR as well as the audio quite contradictorily reflects that the meeting was deferred because the AGP suggested that the "matters under discussion should be deferred to FRAME APPROPRIATE RULES. And "as a result, 5 members of the JCP supported the deferment".
— Imran Shafique (@imran_adv) July 29, 2022
