he Judicial Commission of Pakistan has been reconstituted under the 26th Amendment. Its expanded membership marks a shift towards more inclusive judicial appointments and political accountability. The recalibration follows a growing debate on judicial independence versus public representation in constitutional matters. The tent has been broadened to seat key stakeholders from the legal and political spheres.

The membership now includes parliamentarians picked from both government and opposition ranks. The parliamentarians, seasoned in political strategy and policy advocacy, bring partisan perspectives as well as a public mandate to the table. It has been argued that their inclusion can be a double-edged sword. It adds a check on potential judicial overreach but also risks politicising the selections.

On November 5, the commission held its first meeting and formed a seven-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan.

In its current avatar, the commission is headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi. The chief justice presides over the meetings and guides the nomination processes. Alongside him are senior Supreme Court judges, Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Muneeb Akhtar and Aminuddin Khan. The line-up is joined by Federal Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar, who represents the government’s legal positions and brings a policy-oriented viewpoint to the table. Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan adds a layer of state-centred constitutional interpretation. Advocate Akhtar Hussain, the Pakistan Bar Council representative, is expected to voice the legal community’s focus on maintaining professional independence and ethical standards.

The parliamentary members are strategically chosen to balance political ideologies. The Pakistan Peoples Party is represented by Senator Farooq H Naek. He could highlight the need for nominees capable of navigating governance challenges. PML-N’s Sheikh Aftab Ahmed is likely to favour candidates known for judicial restraint to maintain legislative-judicial harmony. Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf’s nominees, Umar Ayub and Shibli Faraz, bring a sharper emphasis on oversight and accountability. They will potentially favour judges they believe cane guard against executive overreach. The inclusion of a female member, Roshan Khurshid, can infuse discussions with insights that push for gender-sensitive interpretations of the law.

The responsibilities of the re-formed commission are manifold. It reviews and recommends candidates for Supreme Court and High Court appointments, a process demanding thorough vetting of nominees’ legal acumen, ethical standing and judicial philosophy. With parliamentarians added to the commission, this vetting will likely blend traditional legal benchmarks with policy-oriented considerations. The members will go over each candidate’s record as a jurist, scholar or practitioner to forecast their stances on constitutional reviews, fundamental rights and economic regulation.

The responsibilities of the re-formed commission are manifold. It reviews and recommends candidates for Supreme Court and High Court appointments, a process demanding thorough vetting of nominees; legal acumen, ethical standing and judicial philosophy.

The varied perspectives represented by senior judges and legislators sets the stage for debates that could have legal as well as political dimensions. The judges might advocate for focus on intellectual and ethical benchmarks, aligning with principles that preserve the judiciary’s autonomy. The parliamentarians might argue for practical, policy-aligned virtues in candidates, leveraging their mandates to reflect public expectations. The potential for these discussions to morph into bargaining sessions highlights the dual-edged nature of legislative participation—mitigating the risk of echo chambers but potentially injecting partisan biases into judicial nominations.

Law Minister Tarar could try to align judicial appointments with the government’s vision. Attorney General Awan will likely advocate for nominees who can facilitate government litigation with interpretative stances that benefit state interests. Roshan Khurshid may highlight inclusivity and the judicial system’s responsiveness to gender-related issues.

The reconstitution of the commission marks a landmark experiment in balancing high judicial rigor with political representation. Whether the inclusion of these members is “enough” depends on the broad goals of representation and independence. While the integration of varied ideological voices provides new checks and prevents a monopoly of judicial interpretation, questions linger about whether this sufficiently guards against politicisation. It is feared that a politically active commission could blur the line between independence and influence even as it adds diversity.

The commission’s mandate extends beyond transparency in appointments. It also has to strives to build public trust and redefine the judiciary’s role in democracy through professional excellence and social representation. As the equilibrium gets tested, the chief justice’s role will be crucial. An impartial approach will help him steer through ideological crosscurrents, ensuring that nominations fulfil constitutional ideals.

The commission’s future will be determined by its ability to harmonise various priorities. Whether the benches lean towards adaptability and rights-based rulings cement a more conservative, precedent-heavy approach remains to be seen. The presence of progressive, cautious and accountability-driven voices is a good omen for robust even if sometimes contentious deliberation.

The experiment could result in a more adaptable superior judiciary capable of navigating modern challenges. It could equally expose vulnerabilities and reopen debates on the sanctity of judicial independence. For now, gender diversity is limited. Increasing female participation could provide more insights, especially on gender-sensitive matters. Additionally, expanding the scope to include more representatives from underrepresented regions and minority groups could strengthen public confidence in the commission’s fairness and representative nature. Such diversification is key for creating a judiciary that mirrors the society it serves and anticipates multifaceted socio-legal issues.

The writer is the CEO at ZAK Casa and Verde as well as a managing partner at the

Lex Mercatoria law firm