Judicial reforms

Reforms seem to be on the government’s mind these days. With NAB announcing it is looking at tweaking its protocols, the federal government has said that it has also decided to amend the constitutional provision for appointment of judges to the superior judiciary, with particular reference to changing the composition of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, which was established under the 18th Amendment. Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar has said that the government wants to establish a ‘balance’ in the system and that the status of the Parliamentary Committee on Judicial Appointments was not more than a “rubber stamp” following the 19th Amendment while admitting that there was a balance in the procedure in the 18th Amendment. The proposed amendments are aimed at ending the automatic elevation of high court chief justices to the top court and the appointment of the most senior judge as the chief justice of high courts. It must be recalled that the 18th Amendment sought a balance between the role of the executive and the judiciary in the appointment of judges. Many legal experts at that time deemed it a more transparent method that would lead to meritocracy instead of favouritism by the superior judiciary. However, the 19th Amendment passed by the PPP government at the time, ended up making the parliamentary committee nothing but a lame duck.

Judicial reforms, especially when it comes to the appointment of judges, are something the legal fraternity has been asking for a long time – in fact, ever since the lawyers’ movement started back in 2007. The success of the lawyers’ movement led to more powers being vested with the chief justice rather than leading to any meaningful judicial reforms. Now that the government has decided to bring in constitutional amendments, it is important that all stakeholders should weigh in because there are several diverging points of view that must be taken into account. There are those who argue that seniority should be a factor in appointments while there is another point of view that argues how young lawyers should also have a chance to become judges. Some even argue for decreasing the age of the judge when he/she is appointed. The main bone of contention for many is who initiates the nomination of a judge. Some argue that one way to create a balance would be that once the names have been sent by the judicial commission, the parliamentary committee – whose composition should be representative of all parties in which half should be from the treasury and half the opposition – should decide on the name(s) with a consensus. This will make the appointments less controversial and there will not be any allegations of political partisanship or favouritism from within the judiciary either.

Interestingly, when Minister Azam Tarar was asked about rumours regarding a proposal being considered about the chief justice’s term being a fixed tenure, he said that he would not completely reject this news but that he has not been approached for it yet. It must be said that any step the government takes regarding judicial reforms must not be done for expediency or any short-term purposes. In essence, reforms are for the long haul and judicial reforms should lead to more judicial transparency and accountability. And this is not just about who gets to hold the gavel at the top end of the judiciary. Reforms are badly needed also to address the shortage of judges in a situation where case backlogs have reached an epic proportion. Merely empowering parliament should not be the end-goal; it is the people who will be empowered once justice is dispensed quickly and meticulously.