Justice Mansoor seeks JCP meeting details
Supreme Court Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah has urged the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to share the minutes of all its meetings during tenure of Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi.
In a letter written on June 25 to the JCP secretary, Justice Shah raised concern for not sharing the minutes of the JCP meetings to the public.
"I raise an issue of institutional concern: the commission's discontinuation of the practice of releasing the minutes of its meetings to the public," says the letter.
Justice Shah believes that the judiciary, as a trend-setter for other state institutions, must hold itself to the highest standards of openness and public accountability.
"The appointment of judges is a public act with far-reaching consequences. The people of Pakistan have a right to know how the judges of the top court in the country are selected, what deliberations take place, and whether constitutional standards are applied in good faith.
"The opacity that now surrounds the Commission's workings is not healthy, not democratic, and not consistent with the Supreme Court's image as the guardian of constitutional values," says the letter.
He; therefore, urges the commission that the minutes of all JCP meetings held during the tenure of the current chairperson (CJP Afridi) be released to the public, in accordance with past practice.
Abdul Moiz Jaferii advocate said that the central premise of the newly instituted processes related to the judiciary was that the method and process of judicial appointments be made more transparent.
A basic feature of this transparency was the releasing of minutes which let the people see the process of determination. This has now ceased. Without reason, he adds.
After the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the executive has dominancy in the process of judges appointment as well as selection of judges for the constitutional benches.
There is no explanation as why the senior judges were not nominated for constitutional benches in Supreme Court as well as Sindh High Court.
There is no explanation as to why dissenting judges are being sidelined by the commission.
Recently, the JCP ignored the appointment of senior most judges for their appointment as chief justices of the high court.
A lawyer says that they were just ignored because they were not government's like-minded' judges.
Similarly, with valid reason, some senior judges, especially Peshawar High Court Judge Ejaz Anwar, were not nominated for the appointment of SC judge.
There is no explanation as how the JCP altered its opinion about a judge whose integrity was under question one year ago.
It is also witnessed that majority of the government-backed lawyers are appointed as judges of the high courts during the tenure of CJP Afridi.
The lawyers whose integrity and competency are beyond doubt were not nominated for appointments as they were not the government's like-minded'
CJP Afridi so far could not evolve a strategy to minimise the influence of executive in the appointment of judges.
Around 50 judges are appointed in high courts as well as Supreme Court after passage of 26th constitutional amendment.
During the tenure of ex-CJP Qazi Faez Isa, minutes of committee working under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act was being shared on the Supreme Court website. However, this practice has been discontinued during ex CJP Yahya Afridi tenure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
'Why only carriers face music in narcotics case?'
The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the systemic failure of law enforcement in tackling the narcotics trade beyond its most vulnerable participants, observing that prosecutions overwhelmingly target only drug "carriers" – mostly from underprivileged backgrounds – while major perpetrators remain untouched. The observations came in a 17-page written judgment authored by Justice Athar Minallah, in which the court acquitted two individuals who had earlier been sentenced to life imprisonment in a narcotics case. The ruling was issued by a three-member bench headed by Justice Minallah, and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan. "There are several law-enforcement agencies vested with powers to apprehend and prosecute those who are involved in the crimes relating to narcotic drugs, including a special agency, the Anti-Narcotics Force established under the Act of 1997," the verdict notes. The judgment calls into question the effectiveness of these institutions, particularly when viewed against the scale and pervasiveness of the drug menace. "The people of Pakistan have to bear the financial burden for maintaining these law enforcement agencies entrusted with the onerous task to eradicate the menace of narcotic drugs from the society. Have they achieved their designated goal? The answer is an emphatic 'No'," it reads. The court further lamented the growing spread of narcotics across the country, stating: "The evil of narcotic drugs has spread throughout the country and it cannot be disputed that it has reached the educational institutions where they are freely accessible." The bench pointed out that even in the few cases where arrests are made, prosecutions often do not result in convictions, raising further doubts about the integrity and professionalism of investigative processes. "The law enforcement agencies have not gone beyond arresting carriers and then, in many cases, failing to prove the guilt even to their extent. If the society has to be freed from the evil of narcotic drugs then each law enforcement agency has to perform effectively and in the most professional manner." "They have to be held accountable for their omissions and lapses committed during the investigations or while prosecuting a case. The future generations cannot be exposed to the menace of narcotic drugs merely because the several law enforcement agencies entrusted with the onerous duty to free the society from this evil fail to perform effectively or are seen as complicit. "The buck stops with the Federal and Provincial Governments, as the case may be, because they are ultimately responsible for the overall and general supervision of the law enforcement agencies. The responsibility does not end with the Executive branch of the State because the Judicial branch is also equally responsible in ensuring that the trial is conducted fairly and that a just decision is reached. "This case also shows that the trial court had failed in exercising its powers vested under the law. "We, therefore, expect that the Government of Sindh which, according to section 5 (1) of the Act of 2009, exercises general superintendence over the Prosecution Service and is responsible for ensuring achievement of the objectives of the Act of 2009, will take effective steps so that cases involving crimes relating to narcotic substances are dealt with effectively and in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of the investigators and Prosecutors. "The Prosecutor General Sindh is expected to examine this case and take appropriate action so that the omissions observed in this case are not repeated. The prosecutor General is further advised to consider issuing guidelines in exercise of its functions under section 9-A (1) of the Act of 2009 for the Prosecutors and officers responsible for investigations relating to effective and efficient prosecution. The High Court is also expected to consider laying down a policy of regular training of judicial officers relating to conducting of criminal trials. The order also said that this case has emanated from the province of Sindh where the Provincial Assembly of Sindh has promulgated and enacted the Sindh Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution Functions and Powers) Act 2009. "The Criminal Prosecution Service of Sindh has been established under this legislation. The Act of 2009 sets out the powers, functions and responsibilities of the prosecution service in conducting prosecutions on behalf of the Government. "The administration of this service vests in the Government. Section 9 (1) explicitly provides that the Prosecutors shall be responsible for the conducting of prosecutions on behalf of the Government. The Prosecutor General is empowered under section 9-A (1) to issue general guidelines for the Prosecutors or officers responsible for investigation for effective and efficient prosecution.
Express Tribune
12 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Gandapur dismisses rift, defends budget
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister, Ali Amin Gandapur, has dismissed any speculation regarding the stability of his government, stating that all members are united and no one is defecting. "If anyone is eager to bring a no-confidence motion, they are welcome to try — it will only expose the truth," he remarked. He added that had the budget not been passed, the government would have collapsed, and the blame would lie solely with PTI, while opponents would be celebrating. Speaking informally to senior journalists at the Chief Minister's House in Peshawar on Friday, Gandapur reiterated his call to the federal government to open trade routes with Afghanistan — from Chitral to Angoor Adda in Waziristan. "This move will not only boost trade but also ensure regional peace," he said. He also urged that individuals with legal status and those wishing to acquire Pakistani citizenship should be granted it, to promote foreign investment in the province. Gandapur addressed internal party tensions surrounding the budget, stating, "There was propaganda from within that the budget shouldn't be presented, and once it was, noise was made about not passing it. However, when Barrister Saif briefed our party's Patron-in-Chief, he expressed satisfaction with the budget's approval." He revealed that only two members abstained from voting for the budget, adding, "Everyone knows who they're aligned with." He hinted that more clarity on internal matters will emerge once the newly elected members of the provincial assembly are sworn in, and said the party's strategy will be shaped accordingly. The chief minister also explained that due to recent legal interpretations, none of the current assembly members are officially affiliated with PTI, as the Supreme Court's previous decision has been nullified following the July 21 Senate ruling. "Everyone is now considered independent, except me," he emphasized. "I'm still a PTI member, as I listed PTI as my party affiliation in my nomination papers." Responding to criticism over alleged extravagant spending, Gandapur clarified: "I didn't spend Rs115 million on biscuits. That amount was used to provide meals for 400 Class-IV staff members at the CM House and Secretariat." He defended his fiscal record, noting, "While I do spend, I've also saved Rs250 billion. It's the responsibility of political leaders to keep bureaucracy in check — and we will do that." While acknowledging that corruption hasn't been entirely eradicated, Gandapur claimed significant control has been achieved. "I'm accountable not for 12 years but for the 15 months of my current tenure," he added. He concluded by announcing plans to revive closed industries in the province by ensuring the provision of low-cost electricity.
Express Tribune
14 hours ago
- Express Tribune
LHC's May 9 ruling
Listen to article It seems political instability and an unpleasant crisscross with the judiciary is there to stay. The detailed order of a division bench of the LHC that found former PM Imran Khan involved in a 'conspiracy' linked to the May 9 upheavals has come too late, thus putting a question mark on its veracity. The court ironically has summarised its entire contention, reliance and judgment merely on the testimony of two police officials presented by the state prosecution. This is simply a travesty of justice and is in need of a holistic approach to dispense fair play in all judiciousness. It is irksome to note that both the sleuths were present on two different occasions in various parts of Punjab with the accused, and were the only ones to hear him instigate his workers to vandalise state properties in case of his arrest. Thus, the charges of criminal conspiracy and abetment slapped on the incarcerated leader have come to not only delay his lawful bail application, but also to prolong an episode of controversy and discontent that has wrecked socio-political harmony for long. The May 9 buzzword has come a long way. Hundreds of arrested men and women have gone through trials and tribulations. And when the tale was nearing its legal and logical end, as judgments and lawful interpretations of proceedings are in order, this new trial after two years hints at nothing but vendetta. It is a foregone conclusion that the judiciary is under pressure, especially after the 26th amendment, and dispensing an impartial trial to the imprisoned opposition party members is a remote possibility. It is, thus, incumbent upon the judiciary to see that justice is seen to be done, and the cases should not be heard and decided in limbo without seeking relevant pieces of witnesses as ordained by law. Learned Justice Athar Minallah had a point, when he told an audience at the Supreme Court, that the society is polarising owing to the phenomenon that the state is trying to construe self-concocted decisions. Time to step back from this disgusting tendency.
