Pakistan's top court releases draft rules for judges' selection, seeks public feedback

Following Pakistan's landmark 26th Constitutional Amendment that shifted judicial appointment powers toward the executive branch, new rules have been proposed to govern how judges are selected for the country's superior courts.

Under these draft rules, titled "Judicial Commission of Pakistan Appointment of Judges Rules 2024," candidates would need to pass medical examinations to prove their physical and mental fitness, and each high court's chief justice would be chosen from among that court's three most senior judges.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has published the proposed rules on its official website. According to the Supreme Court spokesperson, public comments and feedback can be submitted until Dec. 20, with the Judicial Commission set to meet Dec. 21 to consider the rules for approval.

The rules, drafted by an ad-hoc committee led by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, aim to establish clear merit-based criteria for appointments.

Criteria for determining merit

Candidates for judicial appointments will be evaluated based on the principles outlined in judges' constitutional oath of office - to administer justice to all people according to law, without fear or favor, affection or ill-will.

In assessing a nominee's merit, the commission shall consider the following factors:

• Professional qualifications and experience
• Legal ability
• Efficiency
• Communication skills
• Integrity and independence
• Any other matters deemed relevant by the commission

Consideration shall be given not only to their fitness according to the prescribed criteria but also to their seniority in judicial service.

According to the rules, any person who attempts to influence a member, either directly or indirectly, regarding their nomination shall be disqualified from consideration for judicial appointment.

In initiating and finalizing nominations for high court judicial appointments, members shall ensure fair representation from both the advocate community and judicial service.

Legal know-how mandated for nominated members

The proposed rules specify that parliamentary members nominated to the Judicial Commission must have legal knowledge.

The rules state: "Without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution, the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker of the National Assembly, when making nominations under Article 175A(2)(vii) and (viii) of the Constitution, are expected to ensure that Members nominated to the Commission have legal background."

Nominations for appointment

Any member of the commission may submit nominations for anticipated or actual judicial vacancies in the Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court (including its Chief Justice position), or high courts (including the chief justice and other judicial positions).

For Supreme Court appointments, nominations shall be made from among the five most senior judges of the relevant high court.

The chief justice of a high court shall be nominated from among the three most senior judges of that court.

If a nominee is not approved by the commission, they may be re-nominated for future vacancies unless disqualified for reasons of integrity, moral turpitude, or other substantive concerns.

Confidentiality of proceedings

All commission proceedings shall be conducted in-camera, meaning behind closed doors, to maintain confidentiality, unless otherwise directed by the commission.

The commission will only publish summaries of its decisions on its official website, not its deliberations.

Members shall not disclose the content of commission meeting deliberations except when authorized by a commission majority or when required by law.

Procedure of deliberation on nominations

The chairperson shall regulate commission meeting proceedings and ensure that all members have equal opportunity to express their views during deliberations.

The commission shall deliberate on nominations in an orderly manner, considering nominees from two lists prepared by the Secretariat; first, a list of advocates and law officers, arranged in descending order of age, beginning with the eldest, and second, a list of judicial officers, arranged by seniority in service.

The chairperson shall ensure that deliberations remain focused on each nominee's merits according to the prescribed criteria.