Pakistan’s Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) convened a high-stakes meeting on February 10, 2025, to appoint eight judges to the Supreme Court, sparking nationwide scrutiny and protests. The session, held in Islamabad’s Red Zone, unfolded under tight security as lawyers’ groups staged strikes and political tensions flared over judicial appointments. Here’s a breakdown of the key developments:
Security Measures and Lawyers’ Strike
- Red Zone Lockdown: Islamabad’s Red Zone—home to key government buildings—was sealed off, with roads leading to Serena Hotel, NADRA, Marriott, and Bari Imam closed. Commuters were rerouted to Margalla Road to avoid disruptions.
- Lawyers’ Boycott: The Islamabad Bar Council, IHC Bar Association, and District Bar Association boycotted court proceedings, protesting the transfer of judges from provincial high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC). Lawyers argue these transfers undermine judicial seniority and autonomy.
The Controversial Agenda: Appointing 8 Supreme Court Judges
The JCP meeting aimed to fill eight vacancies in the Supreme Court, a process entangled in constitutional debates and political friction:
- Seniority vs. New Rules: Traditionally, Supreme Court appointments prioritize seniority. However, the 26th Constitutional Amendment (2024) allows the JCP to bypass seniority criteria, enabling the selection of judges from outside the senior-most ranks.
- IHC Chief Justice Elevation: Incumbent IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, the senior-most high court judge, is expected to be elevated to the Supreme Court. His departure has intensified debates over his successor.
- Transferred Judges’ Eligibility: Five IHC judges opposed the potential appointment of a transferred judge (e.g., LHC’s Justice Sardar Dogar) as IHC Chief Justice. They argue such a move violates Article 194, as transferred judges must take a fresh oath, resetting their seniority.
Political Pushback and Constitutional Concerns
- PTI’s Objections: Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Senator Ali Zafar urged Chief Justice Yahya Afridi to postpone the JCP meeting until the IHC’s seniority disputes are resolved. He warned that rushed appointments could destabilize the judiciary.
- Constitutional Clash: The IHC judges’ letter to the Supreme Court emphasized that transferring judges solely to appoint them as chief justices constitutes a “fraud on the Constitution” and erodes judicial independence.
- Historical Precedent: Since the 18th Amendment (2010), no permanent transfers of high court judges have occurred, reinforcing provincial judicial autonomy. The recent transfers mark a contentious shift.
Broader Implications
- Judicial Independence at Risk: Critics fear that allowing transferred judges to lead high courts could centralize power and politicize appointments, undermining the judiciary’s role as a check on government authority.
- Public Trust Erosion: With inflation at 38% and austerity measures straining citizens, the perceived politicization of judicial appointments risks deepening public disillusionment.
- Security-Economy Nexus: The IMF’s ongoing governance review adds pressure, as judicial stability is tied to Pakistan’s ability to secure international loans and stabilize its economy.
What’s Next?
- Protests Escalating: Lawyers’ groups threaten nationwide strikes if their demands for IHC autonomy are ignored.
- Supreme Court Dynamics: The new appointments could shift the court’s ideological balance, influencing rulings on civil rights, federal-provincial disputes, and accountability cases.
- Political Fallout: The ruling coalition faces backlash for backing the JCP’s agenda, while PTI capitalizes on public anger ahead of elections.
The Call to Postpone Judicial Appointments
For more visit Supreme Court official site
