High courts run without permanent top judges
Following the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, adhocism appears to be growing across the superior judiciary.
Despite the lapse of four months, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) has yet to convene a meeting to appoint permanent chief justices for the Sindh High Court, Peshawar High Court and Islamabad High Court.
The Balochistan High Court also remained without a permanent chief justice for more than three months. On May 19, the JCP approved the appointment of Justice Muhammad Ejaz Swati as BHC chief justice, but only for a period of two weeks. He retired on June 5.
Justice Rozi Khan Barech, who ranked second in the BHC's seniority list, has now been appointed acting chief justice.
Similarly, Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar has been serving as acting chief justice of the Islamabad High Court for the past four months. His seniority is currently under challenge in the Supreme Court. While the litigation may explain the delay in appointing a permanent IHC chief justice, no clear reason exists for the prolonged delay in appointments for the other three high courts.
Since the passage of the 18th Amendment, the JCP has not previously delayed the process of appointing permanent chief justices for the high courts.
Under the new constitutional arrangement, the executive holds a dominant role in the appointment of judges to the superior judiciary. However, senior judges, particularly the Chief Justice of Pakistan, have made no serious effort to restore balance in the appointments process.
During the tenure of the current CJP, Justice Yahya Afridi, approximately 50 judges have been appointed to the superior courts, with the executive playing a key role in nominating many of them. No judge can now become a permanent chief justice without the executive's support.
The government has thus succeeded in maintaining "like-minded" acting chief justices in key high courts.
With the backing of former CJP Qazi Faez Isa, the government previously managed to elevate Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan from the Lahore High Court to the Supreme Court, reportedly because he was not their preferred choice to lead the LHC.
At present, the executive is reportedly reluctant to elevate incumbent LHC CJ Alia Neelum, as the Punjab government is said to be comfortable with the current provincial judiciary.
It is also learnt that the executive remains indecisive regarding the appointment of a permanent chief justice for the Sindh High Court.
"It is the PPP that will decide about the permanent chief justice of the SHC," a source added.
Reports suggest that PPP legal minds are divided on the nomination for the next SHC chief justice.
Similarly, Justice Syed Mohammad Attique Shah, who was second in the seniority list of PHC judges, has been appointed as acting chief justice of the Peshawar High Court. The appointment of a permanent PHC chief justice is being delayed for known reasons.
Lawyers are increasingly vocal about the disregard for senior puisne judges of PHC and BHC in the appointment of acting chief justices.
It is learnt that PHC judge Justice Ejaz Anwar is not in the good books of powerful circles. Therefore, despite his seniority, he was neither elevated to the Supreme Court nor appointed as acting chief justice.
The same applies to Justice Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail, who, though appointed as acting chief justice, could not secure clearance from powerful circles. Reports also suggest that he is a victim of judicial politics, and his relationships with some senior judges are not cordial.
The current situation indicates that both senior judges are unlikely to be appointed as permanent chief justices of their respective high courts.
Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii commented on Islamabad, saying, "It is a way to continue the farce that is the new Dogar court. There's a bunch of good judges there, so let's keep them all hanging and distracted".
Speaking on Sindh, Jaferii added, it has the effect of a perpetual carrot being dangled before the senior-most judges in the province.
"Let's see what you can do to please uswithout us really asking you to do anything specific. By keeping the corner court empty, you keep everyone in the race. And when you don't know what you're racing for or how long the race is, you start running cautiously. That is good enough. And it is exactly what they want."
Lawyers believe that senior judges, who are at the helm and beneficiaries of the 26th Amendment, must take steps to restore the institution, whose independence has been compromised for the past six months.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
16 hours ago
- Express Tribune
SHC orders opening of Governor House for acting governor
The Constitutional Bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC), comprising Justice K.K. Agha and Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, heard Acting Governor Owais Qadir Shah's petition challenging the locking of Governor House offices. The court ordered the immediate reopening of these offices and directed the principal secretary to submit a compliance report by June 23. During the urgent hearing, the bench granted acting governor immediate access to the Sindh Governor's official residence. The court specifically ordered the unlocking of all offices (excluding private residential quarters) and restrained the principal secretary from obstructing the acting governor's access. The court also directed that a copy of the judicial order be transmitted to the President of Pakistan and the Principal Secretary of the Governor's House, Sindh. In the petition, it was averred that since assuming charge, the Acting Governor, Owais Qadir Shah, has been denied entry to the Governor's House for official duties which is a violation of Article 104 of the Constitution. Governor Kamran Tessori has been abroad since June 2. Acting Governor of Sindh, Owais Qadir Shah, informed the court that a meeting on law and order in the was scheduled for today, specifically to discuss matters related to Muharram. The home minister, secretary, IG Sindh, and other officials reached for the meeting. However, the principal secretary stated that the governor had taken the office keys with him. Owais Qadir Shah stated that this was an act of considering the Governor's House as their personal lounge. He cited the Constitution, which clearly states that in the absence of the governor, the acting governor can perform duties. Owais Qadir Shah said, he would write to the chief minister, highlighting that this was a mockery of the Constitution.
Business Recorder
18 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Acting governor be given full access to Governor's House: SHC
KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the Principal Secretary of the Governor of Sindh to grant full access to the Acting Governor, Syed Awais Qadir Shah, to all official rooms, offices, and chambers within the Governor House. In a constitutional petition, Syed Awais Qadir Shah, who is also the Speaker of the Sindh Assembly, pleaded that despite Governor Sindh Kamran Tessori being abroad, and as per Article 104 of the Constitution, which mandates the Speaker to perform the Governor's functions, he was being denied access to the Governor House and its associated offices. The petitioner's counsels, Barrister Azain Memon and Zubair Ali Butt, argued that the Principal Secretary had repeatedly refused the petitioner and his staff access to the Governor House, despite formal requests; this denial hindered the Acting Governor's ability to perform his official duties. The court was informed that the denial of access was not an isolated incident but had occurred multiple times, including on the day of the hearing. The petitioner sought immediate and unobstructed access to the Governor House and its resources to discharge his duties as Acting Governor. The Advocate General Sindh, Jawad Dero, stated that the Acting Governor was legally entitled to use the Governor House for official business. The court, after interpreting Article 104, concluded that the petitioner could not be denied access to the Governor House to carry out his official duties. The court directed the Principal Secretary to provide immediate access to the Acting Governor to all rooms, offices, and chambers in the Governor House, except the residential portion, to enable him to perform his official duties. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
20 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Justice Shah warns against extending CB tenure
Senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah has cautioned that the extension of the Constitutional Bench (CB) without resolving the core legal challenge surrounding it could further undermine the top court's legitimacy and deepen the ongoing institutional crisis. "The Commission must wait till the constitutionality of the 26th Constitutional Amendment is decided by this Court before addressing matters that flow directly from it. Proceeding with extensions or re-appointments to a Constitutional Bench whose very legal foundation is under serious constitutional challenge further deepens the institutional crisis and weakens the Court's legitimacy," Justice Shah wrote in a two-page letter addressed to the Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). A copy of the letter was also shared with all JCP members. However, the commission, by majority vote, disregarded Justice Shah's concerns and extended the tenure of the Constitutional Bench until November 30. Justice Shah noted that his office had verbally informed the Secretary JCP on June 12 that he would not be available in Pakistan to attend the meeting scheduled for June 19. "One would have reasonably expected that due to non-availability of one of its Members, the meeting would be deferred — particularly in keeping with past practice, where meetings have been deferred due to the unavailability of Members representing the Executive. Additionally, the meeting falls in the summer vacations announced by the Court. However, it appears that the meeting is continuing as scheduled — perhaps due to the judiciary's minority position in the Commission," the letter read. Justice Shah also requested that his written submissions be included in the official minutes of the JCP meeting, as he would be unable to attend, even virtually. He stressed that the commission must recognise how the ongoing delay in resolving the constitutionality of the 26th Amendment is eroding the Court's credibility and shaking public confidence in its impartiality. "It is both surprising and regrettable that rather than first addressing the legitimacy of the 26th Amendment, the Commission is rather insensitively prioritising the matter of judicial extensions — an act which, in substance, continues the disputed scheme introduced by that very amendment," the letter states. Justice Shah also warned against the growing influence of the Executive over the Commission. "It is imperative that the Court's image is not allowed to drift under the control or convenience of the Executive, which now appears to wield disproportionate influence over the affairs of the JCP." Pending adjudication of constitutional challenges, he proposed that all judges of the Supreme Court be nominated to the Constitutional Bench on an interim basis. "Any selective inclusion without a transparent process or identifiable criteria is patently discriminatory and damaging to institutional harmony." Justice Shah stressed the urgent need to develop formal criteria for the selection of judges to the Constitutional Bench before any further constitution or expansion takes place. "The absence of objective standards renders past nominations vulnerable to the charge of cherry-picking. This ad-hocism has already cast a long shadow on the legitimacy of the Constitutional Bench, and continued exclusion of senior judges without reason only worsens that perception." Addressing another item on the JCP meeting's agendarelated to the framing of rules under Article 175A(20) of the Constitution — Justice Shah asserted that no policy decision should be made until the 26th Amendment's constitutionality is settled, as it is currently being challenged in a series of petitions. In closing, he urged that his concerns be taken seriously. "The strength of the judiciary rests on its credibility, its internal coherence, and its fidelity to constitutional principle — not on expediency or executive preference. If the Commission is to retain its institutional legitimacy, it must lead with integrity, transparency, and collective wisdom."
