• Govt’s legal team set to meet Presidency officials as summary remains pending with Zardari
• Officials say matter now sub judice after petition filed in IHC

ISLAMABAD: In a last-ditch effort to break the deadlock over judicial appointments, the government’s legal team has scheduled a meeting with its counterparts at the Presidency on Sunday, as authorities explore the possibility of unilaterally notifying the confirmation and appointment of high court judges.

The development comes as the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has yet to issue its ruling on the maintainability of a petition challenging President Asif Ali Zardari’s alleged failure to assent to the recommendations of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan.

The JCP, during its meetings on July 20 and 21, recommended the confirmation of four additional judges of the Peshawar High Court, a six-month extension for an additional judge of the Sindh High Court, and the appointment of 19 additional judges to the Lahore, Islamabad, Sindh and Balochistan high courts.

Under Clause 8 of Article 175-A of the Cons­titution, the recommendations were forwarded to the prime minister, who then sent the summary to the president. However, the summary has remained pending with the president since then.

Amid the stalemate, the government is examining the possibility of invoking Article 48(1) of the Constitution to issue the notifications through the law ministry, arguing that the president was required to act on the summary within a fortnight of its submission — a period that has since expired.

However, government functionaries have maintained that with the matter now sub judice, notifications cannot be issued at this stage.

Sources said the government’s legal team planned to pursue an “out-of-court” settlement with its counterparts at the Presidency.

The president’s legal team has raised certain objections to the JCP proceedings, noting that nearly all nominees proposed by the PPP were rejected. They also conveyed that some candidates recommended for appointment have criminal records.

The Presidency’s legal team contends that Article 175-A does not prescribe a specific timeframe for the president’s action and that the provision cannot be overridden by Article 48(1) to bypass the Presidency.

They have also referred to Article 48(2), which empowers the president “to act in his discretion in respect of any matter in respect of which he is empowered by the Constitution to do so” and states that validity of anything done by the president shall not be called into question on any ground whatsoever.

Sources in the Presidency cautioned that any unilateral action in such a sensitive matter would be a “political and legal disaster”. According to them, the only way forward is to reach a consensus through democratic means.

They warned that bypassing the prescribed procedure could trigger significant complications and suggested that any ambiguity regarding Articles 48(1), 48(2) and 175-A(8) should be resolved through mutual consultation between the president and the prime minister rather than through unilateral action.

On the other hand, government sources maintained that judicial appointments were governed by constitutional provisions and that any deadlock must be resolved strictly in accordance with the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the IHC has reserved its verdict on the maintainability of a petition filed by advocate Luqman Chaudhary through his counsel Zahid Chaudhry, seeking a direction to the president to approve the summary.

During Thursday’s hearing, Justice Arbab Muh­ammad Tahir questioned how the court could issue directions to the president and reserved his order.

It was initially expected that the ruling would be issued the same day, but Justice Arbab left his office without delivering it.

The order was then anticipated on Friday morning, but the file had not been returned from the judge’s chamber by the close of business.

The delay has already created practical complications. Four additional judges of the PHC, whose confirmations were recommended by the JCP, ceased to hold office after their tenure expired on Aug 4 due to the absence of formal notifications.

Similarly, an additional judge of the SHC, whose term was extended by six months, relinquished office after his tenure expired on July 29.

Minister of State for Law and Justice Barrister Aqeel Malik said the government would resolve the matter within the constitutional framework and in accordance with the principles laid down by the superior courts.

Published in Dawn, August 8th, 2026