Islamabad High Court asks government for report on judges’ appointment

During the hearing of Luqman Zafar’s petition, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir expressed sharp displeasure with the federal government, asking what the government was doing and whether it had any interest in the matter at all.

“The court had assumed that the government would fulfill its responsibility, but this has not happened,” he said, and asked what stage the summary was actually at and whether anyone knew. He pointed out that confirmations for Sindh and Peshawar High Court judges, already approved by the Judicial Commission, had also been stalled, and said the matter coud not just be left sitting indefinitely. He noted that it had already been 18 days, well past the earlier 15-day mark.

The petitioner’s lawyer, Zahid Asif Chaudhry, argued that the Constitution is very clear about what happens once the time limit passes, and that the President could not simply ‘sit on the summary indefinitely’. The Additional Attorney General added that at this point, the President could not even reject the summary anymore. The court asked the federal government to respond by the next day and adjourned the hearing.

In its written order, the court directed the federal government and the Law Ministry to submit a written report by the next day, and issued notice to Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan to assist the court. It asked the Additional Attorney General to ensure that the federal government and Law Ministry submit brief reports detailing exactly when the Prime Minister sent the summary to the President, and explaining what action, if any, was taken on it afterward. The case will be heard again tomorrow.

The petition filed in the Islamabad High Court asks the court to direct the President to approve the confirmation of additional judges already serving in the superior judiciary. Lawyer Luqman Zafar Chaudhry filed the petition on Wednesday through his counsel Zahid Asif Chaudhry, challenging President Asif Ali Zardari’s delay in approving the summary sent by the Prime Minister. The summary includes recommendations for appointing new judges and confirming additional judges currently serving in the High Courts.

The petition states that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, headed by the Chief Justice, completed the constitutional process and approved recommendations for judges’ appointments on July 20 and 21, after which the Prime Minister sent the summary to the President under Article 48 of the Constitution. Since then, the President has neither approved the summary nor sent it back, but has held onto it without any constitutional justification. The Constitution gives the President a limited role in the judges’ appointment process.

The recommended judges were supposed to take their oath on July 27, but because the President has not approved the summary, that ceremony could not take place and has been postponed indefinitely.

The petition argues that Article 48 of the Constitution requires the President to act on the Prime Minister’s advice, and the only exception allowing him to send the advice back for reconsideration must happen within 15 days — there is no provision in the Constitution for an indefinite silence or delay. By holding onto the summary, the petition argues, the President is effectively turning a limited, time-bound constitutional duty into an informal veto power or indefinite delay, which goes against the principle of judicial independence.

Citing earlier Supreme Court rulings, the petition argues that the process of appointing judges should be transparent, based on mutual consultation, and completed within the set time frame, without unnecessary interference from the executive. It says the shortage of judges in the superior judiciary is affecting the delivery of justice, causing delays in case decisions, and impacting citizens’ basic rights.

The court has been asked to order the President to approve the summary immediately, and to declare his failure to act despite the 15-day constitutional deadline having passed as unlawful. The petition also asks the court to seek clarification from the President’s office on when exactly the summary was received and the reasons for the delay.