Staff Report
ISLAMABAD: Following criticism from two judges, the Supreme Court of Pakistan uploaded the audio of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s (JCP) meeting on its website.
“In these exceptional circumstances the Hon’ble chairman JCP has been pleased to relax the restriction under Rule 5(4) of the JCP Rules, 2010 and has directed for the audio recording of the JCP proceedings of 28.07.2022 to be made available on the official website of the SCP,” said a statement issued by the apex court.
The Supreme Court, in its statement, claimed that the “audio recording from time slot 1:29:45 to 1:38:08 contains the statement” made by Attorney-General for Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf Ali, led to the deferment of the meeting as claimed by the PRO.
The statement also claimed that the AGP “did not assess or reject the merits of any of the High Court judges proposed for appointment to the SCP”.
“As a result, 5 members of the JCP supported the deferment of the meeting as reported in the Press Note of 28.07.2022,” said the SCP.
As per the audio, Justice (retd) Sarmad Jalal Osmany rejected the nomination of Sindh High Court’s Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto and accepted the other four nominees. But he does not use the word defer or adjournment
The second opinion was taken by Justice Sajjad Ali Shah who accepted the five nominations and approved their elevation to the Supreme Court. While Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan lauded the judgement of Justice Shahid Waheed compared to the other nominees and then fully endorsed all the judges nominated by CJP Umar Ata Bandial for elevation.
Interestingly, none of the judges used the word “adjourn or defer” as claimed by the Supreme Court’s press release issued right after the meeting.
On the other hand, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, while speaking on the nomination, used data from the judgments issued by the judges and compared how much of that has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
After giving all the data, Justice Masood then emphasised that the seniority principle should be followed in the case and also states that the constitution does not allow the filling of posts based on anticipated vacancy.
The judge also tells the commission that if one judge is being given the right to nominate their successor, then everyone should be given that right, but clarified that this is against the Constitution.
