ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court reserved on Thursday its verdict on the maintainability of a plea challenging President Asif Ali Zardari’s delay in approving a summary for the appointment and confirmation of judges to various high courts.
The writ petition, filed by advocate Luqman Zafar Chaudhary through his counsel Zahid Asif Chaudhry on Wednesday, urged the court to direct the president to approve the summary forwarded by the prime minister for the appointment of 19 additional judges and the confirmation of five judges to the Islamabad, Lahore, Sindh, Balochistan and Peshawar high courts.
Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir took up the plea today, with the counsel for the petitioner arguing that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) had recommended the judicial appointments under consideration during its meetings on July 20 and 21, but the summary has reportedly not been approved by the president even after 15 days had passed.
The JCP, which is responsible for appointing judges to the superior judiciary and is headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, had recommended the names after following the procedure laid down under Article 175A of the Constitution. The summary was subsequently forwarded by the prime minister to the president for assent under Article 48 of the Constitution.
Having completed the constitutional process within the executive branch, the summary is now pending President Zardari’s approval.
The delay in presidential assent has begun to affect the functioning of the superior judiciary, with the term of an additional judge of the Sindh High Court (SHC) having already expired and four additional judges of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) facing a similar situation within days, despite recommendations by the JCP for the continuation of their services.
The petitioner’s counsel told the court that according to information available to him, the government had started issuing notifications regarding the appointments.
He also requested the court to seek details about the status of the summary.
During the hearing, the contents of the petition he had filed on his client’s behalf were also read out on the court’s direction, and Justice Tahir repeatedly questioned if a constitutional petition could be maintained against the president. He asked the counsel to cite any precedent in which a writ had been issued against the president.
More to follow
