Islamabad, Pakistan: The 26th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan introduced reforms to address deficiencies in judicial appointments and processes. Specifically:
- Article 175A(4): This provision emphasizes the formation of rules by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to ensure transparent, objective, and merit-based judicial appointments to the superior judiciary.
- Article 191A(6): This provision mandates that the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench frame rules to regulate its functioning.
These constitutional provisions were meant to institutionalize fairness and transparency in the judicial system. However, the failure of both the JCP and the constitutional bench to frame the requisite rules undermines the constitutional intent, leaving critical judicial processes subject to ambiguity and potentially arbitrary decision-making.
Implications of Non-Compliance:
- Judicial Appointments Without Clear Criteria:
Without rules under Article 175A(4), the Chief Justice retains unchecked discretion in proposing names for judicial appointments. This undermines the collective decision-making envisioned by the Constitution and fuels allegations of favoritism and lack of meritocracy.
It contradicts the constitutional principle of institutional checks and balances.
- Constitutional Bench Hearings Without Defined Rules:
The failure of the constitutional bench to frame its own rules under Article 191A(6) creates procedural uncertainty. This affects the predictability, fairness, and efficiency of constitutional adjudication.
Such a vacuum may lead to inconsistent practices or ad hoc rulings, compromising the judiciary’s credibility.
- Erosion of Public Trust:
The inaction of the legal leadership signals a lack of accountability and a possible disconnect from constitutional responsibilities.
Public confidence in the judiciary suffers, as citizens expect judicial institutions to uphold the Constitution rigorously.
- Legal Fraternity’s Silence:
The legal community’s apparent inaction or silence—especially bar associations and senior advocates—reflects either a lack of awareness, political complacency, or incapacity to address constitutional deficiencies.
This exacerbates the situation, as meaningful reform often requires active advocacy and pressure from the legal fraternity.
Responsibility of Legal Fraternity:
Leaders of the legal fraternity are traditionally seen as custodians of constitutional values. Their silence in this matter may suggest:
A lack of consensus or understanding regarding the constitutional amendments.
Fear of challenging entrenched judicial authorities or political influence.
A broader culture of complacency within the legal profession.
Pressure political and judicial stakeholders to prioritize these issues.
