ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that the Parliamentary Committee (PC) stepped over the rightful jurisdiction of the Judicial Commission (JC) and ignored its constitutional boundaries while rejecting one-year extension to six additional judges of the Lahore and Sindh high courts. “The Judicial Commission and the Parliamentary Committee are two limbs of one constitutional mechanism created by the newly-added Article 175-A (through the 18th Amendment),” Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui observed on Monday while giving detailed reasons why a four-judge bench had overturned the PC’s decision through a March 4 short order. The controversy over powers of the PC and JC erupted in the first week of February when the eight-member committee, headed by Senator Nayyar Hussain Bokhari of the PPP, rejected JC’s recommendations to extend the service of four additional judges of the LHC — Justices Muhammad Yawar Ali, Syed Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi, Mamood Rashid Sheikh and Muhammad Farrakuh Irfan Khan. On March 1, the bipartisan committee again rejected JC’s nominations of Justices Muhammad Tasnim and Salman Hamid of the SHC. In its short order, the bench comprising Justice Shahid Siddiqui, Justice Jawwad S. Khawja, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez had directed the federal government to immediately issue a notification endorsing extension to the six judges in line with JC’s recommendations. The PC had expressed its intention of requesting the prime minister to go to the court for a review of the decision. The short order had drawn instant reaction from different quarters. Supreme Court Bar Association President Asma Jehangir said the order struck down the spirit of the 19th Amendment which had been adopted after accommodating the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court. In a separate concurring note, Justice Khawaja observed that differences of opinion between the JC and the PC should not be seen as adversarial turf-wars or matters of prestige between the two bodies. “Both of them have a common aim of ensuring that the will of the people of Pakistan to establish independence of the judiciary is fully secured. As nations mature and polities evolve, their maturity is reflected in the manner in which such differences are resolved in accordance with the governing compact, which is the Constitution. The two constitutional bodies should not be seen as adversaries serving antagonistic and conflicting ends,” he observed. Justice Khawaja said it would negate the very purpose of the 18th and 19th amendments if the PC was to have the power to rely on the opinion of just one member of the JC, that too expressed prior to collective deliberations. “The purpose of spreading the decision-making process over a collegium comprising 13 persons (in the JC) was to ensure an objective and balanced opinion. This process is meant to ensure, to a great degree, objectivity in the nominations made after discussion and inputs from all members of the JC,” Justice Khawaja explained. Authored by Justice Shahid Siddiqui, the detailed judgment held that decisions of the PC were subject to judicial scrutiny of this court (Supreme Court). It said that the reasoning adopted by the committee while rejecting the nominations was irrelevant, unjustified and improper under the law and, therefore, without legal force or constitutional sanctity. The verdict said: “The entire reasoning of the PC is focused on no material other than that which had already been thrashed out and discussed in depth by the JC. Instead of giving its own reasons for not confirming the nominations, the PC merely opted to usurp the territory reserved for the JC. “And in doing so, they again passed judgment on the professional calibre, legal acumen, judicial skill and quality and the antecedents of the judicial nominees — an exercise already done by the JC. “Neither the PC has expertise nor the constitutional mandate to reverse the reasoning and findings of the JC; when the JC comprises people having an immense background and stature in the field of law and the judicial system. “The purpose then was that the discretion in making judicial appointments should not be the forte of one man, as in the old system, but should rather be devolved to a body consisting of people who could be trusted to make a just evaluation through related criteria relevant for the appointment of a person as a judge of the high court. “We are thus unable to see how the technical expertise, judged by the JC comprising people having spent decades in the legal field, could be better judged, or worse, reversed by the PC. If this is intended by the legislature then simply there is no need to even constitute the JC. “How could the PC arrive at a conclusion that the entire exercise of the JC was flawed, based on the piecemeal views of one member of the JC? The PC cannot simply brush aside the recommendations of the JC without its own sound reasons. The PC is to confine itself to the purpose for which it is constituted, which is evidently the thrashing out of issues not related to the domain of the JC. “The committee (PC) can, based on factual data and reasons, for instance, declare that a nominee is corrupt or is affiliated/partial making him a controversial choice, but judging the calibre of a nominee as a judge rests with the JC.”

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that the Parliamentary Committee (PC) stepped over the rightful jurisdiction of the Judicial Commission (JC) and ignored its constitutional boundaries while rejecting one-year extension to six additional judges of the Lahore and Sindh high courts.

“The Judicial Commission and the Parliamentary Committee are two limbs of one constitutional mechanism created by the newly-added Article 175-A (through the 18th Amendment),” Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui observed on Monday while giving detailed reasons why a four-judge bench had overturned the PC’s decision through a March 4 short order.The controversy over powers of the PC and JC erupted in the first week of February when the eight-member committee, headed by Senator Nayyar Hussain Bokhari of the PPP, rejected JC’s recommendations to extend the service of four additional judges of the LHC — Justices Muhammad Yawar Ali, Syed Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi, Mamood Rashid Sheikh and Muhammad Farrakuh Irfan Khan. On March 1, the bipartisan committee again rejected JC’s nominations of Justices Muhammad Tasnim and Salman Hamid of the SHC.In its short order, the bench comprising Justice Shahid Siddiqui, Justice Jawwad S. Khawja, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez had directed the federal government to immediately issue a notification endorsing extension to the six judges in line with JC’s recommendations.The PC had expressed its intention of requesting the prime minister to go to the court for a review of the decision.The short order had drawn instant reaction from different quarters. Supreme Court Bar Association President Asma Jehangir said the order struck down the spirit of the 19th Amendment which had been adopted after accommodating the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court.In a separate concurring note, Justice Khawaja observed that differences of opinion between the JC and the PC should not be seen as adversarial turf-wars or matters of prestige between the two bodies.“Both of them have a common aim of ensuring that the will of the people of Pakistan to establish independence of the judiciary is fully secured. As nations mature and polities evolve, their maturity is reflected in the manner in which such differences are resolved in accordance with the governing compact, which is the Constitution. The two constitutional bodies should not be seen as adversaries serving antagonistic and conflicting ends,” he observed.Justice Khawaja said it would negate the very purpose of the 18th and 19th amendments if the PC was to have the power to rely on the opinion of just one member of the JC, that too expressed prior to collective deliberations.“The purpose of spreading the decision-making process over a collegium comprising 13 persons (in the JC) was to ensure an objective and balanced opinion. This process is meant to ensure, to a great degree, objectivity in the nominations made after discussion and inputs from all memberstheJC,”JusticeKhawajaexplained.Authored by Justice Shahid Siddiqui, the detailed judgment held that decisions of the PC were subject to judicial scrutiny of this court (Supreme Court). It said that the reasoning adopted by the committee while rejecting the nominations was irrelevant, unjustified and improper under the law and, therefore, without legal force or constitutional sanctity.The verdict said: “The entire reasoning of the PC is focused on no material other than that which had already been thrashed out and discussed in depth by the JC. Instead of giving its own reasons for not confirming the nominations, the PC merely opted to usurp the territory reserved for the JC.

“And in doing so, they again passed judgment on the professional calibre, legal acumen, judicial skill and quality and the antecedents of the judicial nominees — an exercise already done by the JC.“Neither the PC has expertise nor the constitutional mandate to reverse the reasoning and findings of the JC; when the JC comprises people having an immense background and stature in the field of law and the judicial system.

“The purpose then was that the discretion in making judicial appointments should not be the forte of one man, as in the old system, but should rather be devolved to a body consisting of people who could be trusted to make a just evaluation through related criteria relevant for the appointment of a person as a judge of the high court.“We are thus unable to see how the technical expertise, judged by the JC comprising people having spent decades in the legal field, could be better judged, or worse, reversed by the PC. If this is intended by the legislature then simply there is no need to even constitute the JC. “How could the PC arrive at a conclusion that the entire exercise of the JC was flawed, based on the piecemeal views of one member of the JC? The PC cannot simply brush aside the recommendations of the JC without its own sound reasons. The PC is to confine itself to the purpose for which it is constituted, which is evidently the thrashing out of issues not related to the domain of the JC. “The committee (PC) can, based on factual data and reasons, for instance, declare that a nominee is corrupt or is affiliated/partial making him a controversial choice, but judging the calibre of a nominee as a judge rests with the JC.”