ISLAMABAD: The parliamentary committee on judges’ appointment approved on Monday a report that gave it ‘decisive’ role in the selection of judges for superior judiciary.

A member of the committee told Dawn that after being vetted by the Ministry of Law and Justice, the recommendations of the report would be tabled before the parliament in the form of a constitutional amendment bill.

The committee headed by Syed Naveed Qamar also approved the recommendations of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) for the elevation of Justice Noor Meskanzai as chief justice of the Balochistan High Court (BHC) and appointment of Amir Farooq as additional judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

The report which suggested a number of measures to strengthen parliamentary oversight in the process of judges’ appointment was compiled by a committee headed by Farooq H. Naek.

Mr Qamar told journalists after the meeting that the committee had approved the report empowering lawmakers to reject recommendations of the JCP with a three-fourths majority.

In the 18th Amendment, the Constitution Reforms Committee headed by Senator Mian Raza Rabbani had introduced a mechanism for the appointment of superior courts’ judges through the JCP and the parliamentary committee.

Earlier, appointments of judges were made by heads of judiciary and executive.

Under the 18th Amendment, the JCP has been empowered to nominate and recommend suitable persons for vacant positions of judges and the parliamentary committee’s job is to endorse the recommendations or otherwise.

Recommendations of the committee’s report will be tabled in the parliament in the form of a constitution amendment bill

A controversy over the balance of power between the parliamentary committee and the JCP surfaced in October 2010, when then chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, while hearing petitions against the 18th Amendment, “overpowered” the parliamentary committee and held that “if the parliamentary committee disagrees or rejects any recommendations of the Judicial Comm­ission, it shall give specific reasons”.

The apex court also set a 14-day deadline for the parliamentary committee for deliberations, after which the JCP’s recommendations would attain finality.

After the verdict, the government introduced the 19th Amendment, but did not give the JCP a final say in the appointment of judges. However, in February, 2011, when the parliamentary committee had rejected the JCP’s recommendations the matter again reached the apex court.

The Supreme Court observed that the parliamentary committee was not mandated to evaluate professional capabilities of lawyers to be appointed as judges.

Mr Qamar said that the parliamentary committee also “extended the 14 days limit to 30 days to evaluate the nominations recommended by the JCP”.

He said the committee proposed for an ‘initiation committee’ to suggest names for the vacant position of judges for respective high courts.

“The initiation committee would consist of three senior most judges of the high court, advocate general of the province and member of the respective bar council,” he said.

Vacant position of judges would be filled within 60 days after the retirement of a judge, Mr Qamar added.

Another member of the committee on the condition of anonymity told Dawn that apex court’s judgment on the appointment of judges had turned the parliamentary panel into a ‘rubber stamp’.

“Because of the verdict, the parliamentary committee was powerless,” he said, adding that “our decisions were being challenged in respective high courts and the Supreme Court”.

He, however, expressed the hope that after amendment in Article 175-A the committee would be in a better position to scrutinise the nominations of judges.

He said 14 days were not enough to consider JCP’s recommendations as the committee could not get documents about the nominated persons from the departments concerned.

He pointed out that during the process of appointment of judges for the Peshawar High Court and the Lahore High Court when documents about tax returns were provided to the committee the 14 days deadline for the committee had already elapsed.

As per details of tax returns, some lawyers who were recommended for their appointment as additional judges of these courts were either not taxpayers or paying tax as low as Rs1,000 during the past fiscal year.

Published in Dawn December 23th , 2014