The Supreme Court has issued a decision on the appointment of judges in thehigher judiciary. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the independence ofthe judiciary is of fundamental importance for the functioning of thecountry’s constitution.
The powers of all three branches of the state are clear in theconstitution, and the principle of seniority is a fundamental part of thecivil service promotion committee. According to the decision, promotionscan only be made based on seniority. Merit and eligibility are fundamentalaspects of promotions and appointments.
The assessment of seniority is done at the time when merit, eligibility,and all applicants are equal. The merit system underlines the opportunityfor qualified and eligible individuals to advance. The decision states thatjudges in the Judicial Commission, established for appointments, hold equalimportance.
The parliamentary committee cannot review the recommendations of theJudicial Commission. The skills of the members of the parliamentarycommittee are different from the Judicial Commission members, whose task isto assess the eligibility and capability of nominated judges.
According to the decision, both the parliamentary committee and theJudicial Commission can work within their respective limits. Theparliamentary committee’s decision cannot be based on assumptions orpersonal preferences. The parliamentary committee can either accept orreject the names of judges recommended by the commission and cannot sendthe commission back.
Read Top Stories
Courts should respect past decisions. The Supreme Court has dismissed theappeals against the Peshawar High Court’s decision. The parliamentarycommittee had directed the Judicial Commission to assess recommendations inaccordance with seniority principles.
The Peshawar High Court had declared the parliamentary committee’srecommendation as void, a decision that the Supreme Court has upheld.
