Petition against in-camera proceedings of JCP

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday directed the Ministry of Law and Justice Division and Attorney General of Pakistan to submit comments in a writ petition challenging the in-camera proceedings of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP).

A division bench comprising Justice Syed Afsar Shah and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim issued the notice.

Azeem Afridi, a former judge, had filed the writ petition through his lawyer Muazzam Butt.

During arguments, the lawyer submitted that the petitioner was seeking an order of the court to declare clause 4 of rule 5 of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s Rules, 2010 constraining the commission to hold its proceedings in-camera as void ab initio.

The lawyer contended that the commission is bound to adhere to the principles of merit and transparency in the discharge of its functions and record its decisions under the hands and signatures of its members.

The petitioner requested the court to declare that the secretary for the commission is obliged to limit its functions and authority to the extent authorised to him under the rules.

It was submitted that under Rule 2 (e), the secretary, registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, shall forward the nominations made by the commission to the secretary of the Parliamentary Committee constituted under clause 9 of Article 175-A of the Constitution.

The petitioner said under clause 4 of Rule 5 of Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2010, “The proceedings of the Commission shall be held in-camera. A record of the proceedings shall be prepared and maintained by the secretary of the Commission duly certified by chairman under his hands.”

It said the above provisions of the said rules would suggest that no role, whatsoever, is authorised to the secretary of the commission except to forward nominations of the commission, and preparing and maintaining its records.

“Unfortunately, and as evident from the records of minutes of the meeting dated October 12, 2012, the most important and most crucial functions of the commission, ie nominations of persons for appointment of judges of the high court, is performed by the secretary and that too in a manner neither authorised to the commission, by the Constitution, nor by the rules to the secretary of the Commission,” the petitioner argued.