The audio recording of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s meeting on July 28 has been made available, although perhaps not in the manner in which Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial had wanted. The recording of the meeting called to discuss the names of potential judges for elevation to the Supreme Court has made rifts within the superior judiciary that have existed for some time publicly visible to an embarrassing degree.
The occurrence also seems to have simply exacerbated the disagreement between JCP members who support the CJP’s stance and those who favour seniority until objective standards are established for promoting judges to the highest court. The repercussions run the risk of tainting even the holy halls of justice.
Since the meeting, five JCP members have written to the chief justice, who is in charge of the commission; Akhtar Hussain, a representative of the Pakistan Bar Council in the JCP, has written the most recently. In his four-page letter, he claimed that while many things contributed to the current factionalism, the CJP alone held the power to end it. As head of the legal community, he could do this by amending JCP rules and supervising the formulation of more objective criteria for the nomination of judges, he claimed.
Mr. Hussain further emphasised that the JCP’s discussions were intended to be private in order to allow members to express their views openly and honestly while safeguarding the reputations of the judges whose names were being discussed. Because of that, he reasoned, the commission members needed to be consulted before laxing the regulations and releasing the recording. It is challenging to argue against this viewpoint. An open discussion that was intended to be held in private to debate a subject that directly affects the standard of justice delivered by the highest court in the land has been made available for everyone to remark on and extrapolate whatever meaning they choose. Both the judges about whose unfavourable remarks were made at the meeting and the JCP members who made them have reason to be resentful.
The chief justice now needs to think about his legacy, no matter how poorly calculated the decision to release the video may have been. It is now hard to ignore the growing demand to make the selection and promotion of Supreme Court judges more inclusive and transparent. The conference on July 28 also included numerous repetitions of it. Through a number of decrees and rulings over the years, the apex court centralised the authority to direct the commission’s actions in the person of the CJP. That dominant role has grown unsustainable, as shown by conflict over recent Supreme Court nominations. His fraternity must be heard by Chief Justice Bandial.
