aving confirmed their nomination a week earlier, the Supreme Court is set to welcome three new judges in its fold. The approved appointments include Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, the Lahore High Court chief justice, known for his extensive experience in criminal law.

The elevation of Sindh High Court chief justice, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, and Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan of the Lahore High Court was also confirmed. These appointments come at a critical time as the Supreme Court faces a backlog of around 53,000 cases. The addition of judges with substantial experience in criminal law can be seen as a strategic move to mitigate the pressure on the top court. However, the nominations were a split decision.

The nominations were approved amidst a debate on the functionality of the current system. The legal elite had assembled only last month and the Judicial Commission of Pakistan had found itself navigating the challenging waters of continuity and impending reform. During a pivotal meeting last month at the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the commission had grappled with the implications of the federal government’s proposal to amend Article 175A of the constitution. This amendment could reshape the commission’s composition and potentially its functionality in appointing judges to the superior judiciary.

Established under the JCP Rules of 2010, the Judicial Commission has been instrumental in ensuring a structured and somewhat transparent process for judicial appointments. The framework aims to facilitate a collegial and inclusive decision-making process, aligning with Article 175-A of the constitution. The rules stipulate procedures for convening meetings, initiating nominations and ensuring adequate representation from the district judiciary and the Bar.

Despite these appointments, the debate over reforms continues. At the heart of the current debate lie the proposed amendments to Article 175A. According to media reports, the federal law minister, during the meeting, had requested the deferral of the agenda, citing that the formation of the commission itself might be subject to the proposed changes. This announcement underscored a potential shift in how judges are appointed, potentially altering the balance of influence within the Judiciary and between the Judiciary and other branches of government. Justice Yahya Afridi had suggested postponing the meeting until the government formally proposed the amendments, a motion that was agreed upon by all members. However, it was decided that this postponement would not stall the ongoing appointment processes, which would continue under the current rules.

Established under the JCP Rules of 2010, the Judicial Commission has been instrumental in ensuring a structured and transparent process for judicial appointments. The framework aims to facilitate a collegial and inclusive decision-making process, aligning with Article 175-A of the constitution.

The meeting had witnessed a diverse array of perspectives. From justices of the Supreme Court and chief justices of the Federal Shariat Court and all High Courts to provincial law ministers and representatives from Bar Councils, opinions varied. Some viewed the potential changes as necessary reforms that could bring fresh dynamism and fairness to the judicial system. Others expressed concerns about preserving judicial independence, fearing that amendments might make the Judiciary more susceptible to political pressures.

Currently, the JCP operates under a system where nominations and decisions are essentially transparent but not fully open to public scrutiny. This can lead to perceptions of opacity, where the reasoning behind selecting or rejecting a nominee may not be clear to the general public. The proposed reforms could potentially address this issue by changing how meetings are convened and decisions made; perhaps most importantly, how these processes are communicated to the public.

The debate during the recent JCP meeting illustrates the complexity in judicial appointments. Some members preferred another candidate due to their performance and perceived administrative strengths, highlighting the subjective elements in such decisions. Making these discussions more transparent could help the public understand the criteria and reasoning behind each appointment, thus enhancing trust in the judicial system.

Changes to the JCP rules could have far-reaching implications for future decisions, particularly those involving the government or significant constitutional matters. The reaction from the legal community and the public has been mixed. While some have applauded the potential for reform, others have been cautious, if not outright sceptical, about the motives behind the proposed changes and their timing.

The judicial system stands at a crossroads. The balance between maintaining established procedures and embracing necessary reforms is delicate. The proposed changes to the JCP and the ongoing appointments process present an opportunity to strengthen judicial transparency. Reforms could make the system more inclusive, accountable and open. There is the potential to restore public confidence in the Judiciary. This is essential for the Judiciary’s role in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan.

The writer is the CEO at ZAK Casa and Verde as well as a managing partner at a law firm, namely Lex Mercatoria