ISLAMABAD:
A subcommittee of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) will meet on September 26 to prepare draft rules for the annual judicial performance evaluation of high court judges.
The five-member committee, chaired by Justice Mandokhail, includes Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, Senator Farooq H Naek (from the treasury benches), Senator Ali Zafar (from the opposition benches), and Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) representative Ahsan Bhoon.
Earlier, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi had formed two committees led by Justice Mandokhail to prepare draft rules for the annual judicial performance evaluation of high court judges, as well as criteria for the selection of judges for the constitutional benches (CBs).
On August 21, the majority of members of the CB committee resolved that the Constitution does not empower it to frame criteria for the selection of judges.
Now, the same members will meet again on September 26 to draft proposed rules for setting up effective standards for evaluating the performance of high court judges.
The 26th Constitutional Amendment mandated that the JCP conduct annual performance evaluations of high court judges. If a judge is found to be inefficient, the commission may grant a period for improvement. If, after that period, the judge’s performance is still deemed unsatisfactory, the commission shall send its report to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
Article 175A(20) also states that the commission may make separate rules for setting up effective standards for the performance evaluation of high court judges.
This amendment, however, is under challenge before the Supreme Court. Since January, the constitutional bench has not taken up petitions challenging the 26th amendment.
Source said the constitutional benches committee, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, had resolved that the petitions would be heard soon after the summer vacations. However, the cases are yet to be listed.
Experts believe that the performance evaluation of high court judges must strictly follow rules framed under Article 175A(20), be based on objective criteria, and provide reasons that are legally justiciable.
They argue that, to ensure fairness of trial and due processand to avoid any interference with judicial independencenon-judicial members of the commission should not have the right to vote or participate in proceedings concerning the evaluation of judges or the referral of reports to the SJC, particularly in cases where they may appear as litigants or advocates.
Before framing the rules, many lawyers insist that judicial review of the 26th Constitutional Amendment is necessary. There is a prevailing perception that the executive has a dominant role in the JCP’s decision-making.
Despite the presence of objective criteria, the government has, so far, been able to influence the appointment of superior court judges through the JCP. Even the selection of judges for constitutional benches in the Supreme Court is said to have been shaped by the executive’s preferences.
Lawyers stress that it is important to examine whether the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers remain intact after the 26th Amendment.
