Judicial appointments

The lesson from the recent crisis over judicial appointments ought to be that clear rules are what’s needed. — File Photo 

 

The special parliamentary committee debating changes to the constitution has reached an agreement on the process for the appointment of judges to the superior judiciary. It appears that the process is essentially the one outlined in the Charter of Democracy: a judicial committee headed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan and consisting of members of the superior judiciary, the relevant bar associations and the government’s legal team will forward its recommendations to the prime minister who will in turn send a candidate’s name for approval to a parliamentary committee consisting of both government and opposition members.

First, the good news: the new process seeks to end the focus on individuals. Presently, the constitution puts the onus on the Supreme Court chief justice and the president for deciding who will be a member of the Supreme Court (the provincial governors and high court chief justices play a role in the appointment of high court justices).

As we have seen in the very recent past, the significant powers given to individuals can lead to a destabilising struggle when the political and judicial sides do not agree. The new process should go a long way in reducing the perception that disagreements are between individuals, a possibility that should be welcomed since it would mean a structural crease in the democratic system will have been ironed out.

Now for the bad news. First, approval by the special parliamentary committee on constitutional reforms doesn’t mean that the proposed amendments will automatically pass when placed before the two houses of parliament. There may yet be some ‘last minute’ changes that could scuttle a very good idea. Second, the numbers and process selected could lead to problems. For example, to approve or reject a judicial nominee, six out of eight votes are needed in the parliamentary committee.MORE DETAILS....