Islamabad: The Special Parliamentary Committee constituted to decide on the appointment of Pakistan’s next chief justice on Tuesday agreed on the name of Justice Yayha Afridi as the new top judge.
The committee met to nominate the next chief justice from among the three most senior Supreme Court judges after the recently adopted 26th Constitutional Amendment brought numerous changes pertaining to the judiciary, including the appointment of chief justice by a Special Parliamentary Committee (SPC) against the previous rule of the senior-most judge becoming the chief justice under the seniority principle.
The first round of in-camera meeting of the parliamentary panel comprising government and opposition members was held in the afternoon in the Parliament House.
However, the members belonging to the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-backed Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) skipped the meeting, prompting the committee members to meet again at night.
The incumbent chief justice, Qazi Faez Isa, is set to retire on October 25 and under the old rule, senior puisne judge, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, was set to be the next chief.
Under amendments to clause 3 of Article 175A, instead of the president appointing the “most senior judge of the Supreme Court” as the chief justice, the top judge will now be “appointed on the recommendation of the Special Parliamentary Committee from amongst the three most senior” judges of the Supreme Court.
After Justice Shah, the next two senior apex court judges were Justices Munib Akhtar and Yahya Afridi.
Under a new clause 3C of Article 175A, the first nomination after the Amendment was in force is to be sent “within three days prior to the retirement” of the outgoing CJ, which sets the deadline for nomination by tonight.
The committee’s task was to vet the top three senior judges. Once the name is finalised, it will be sent to the prime minister, who will then forward it to the president for the appointment.
The new process signals a significant departure from the judiciary’s long-held autonomy in determining its leadership.
Apparently being tired of judicial overreach, the parliament tried to curtail the judiciary’s influence in political and governance matters, which the courts were accused of exercising in recent years.
