ISLAMABAD, Sept 7: A special meeting of the Judicial Commission (JC) held here on Saturday to consider amendments suggested by the lawyers’ body in the Judicial Commission Rules 2010 remained inconclusive.
An informed source told Dawn that the commission deliberated on the proposed amendments and decided to continue with the discussion some other day because the composition of the body was not complete with several participants, including senior judges, federal and provincial law ministers and provincial bar representatives, not in attendance.
The JC suggests names for the appointment of judges to the superior judiciary which are then forwarded to an eight-member Parliamentary Committee comprising members of the National Assembly and Senate for its approval and finally these names are sent to the president for his approval.
Both the high-powered bodies were constituted under article 175 of the constitution after the 18th and the 19th Amendments.
During its meeting on March 9, the Pakistan Bar Council had suggested amendments to JC’s rules numbers 2, 3, 6 and 8.
The proposed amendments recommend that in order to have purposeful and meaningful consultation the representative of the PBC should be taken into confidence before the initiation and sending of names to the commission by the chief justice or the chief justices of high courts.
Similarly, the decision to relax any rule should be decided by the entire commission in the public interest and not by the chairman alone.
The PBC is of the view that any member of the commission should have the right to propose names for the appointment of judges in the commission’s meeting.
The source said that Yaseen Azad, the PBC’s representative to the JC, told the meeting that article 175 of the constitution was silent on the point that names for the appointment of judges should only be proposed by the JC’s head.
He was of the view that the Oct 21, 2010 interim order pronounced by a 17-judge full bench of the Supreme Court, in which guidelines for parliament to amend the 18th amendment were suggested, was ineffective.
He said that since the case had not yet been concluded and was adjourned but never heard again, it should be taken up and concluded.
It was suggested to Mr Azad that the PBC should file an application for an urgent hearing. But he replied that since the council was not a party in the case, the court should fix and decide the matter itself.