Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel has issued a written response to a letter by senior apex court judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, addressing the latter’s concerns about judicial appointments and suggesting future input for the Rules Committee. Justice Mandokhel clarified that Justice Shah’s proposals for stricter mechanisms and guidelines for appointing judges had been previously reviewed and would be further studied.
Justice Mandokhel encouraged Justice Shah to continue sharing his recommendations with the Rules Committee in the future.
In his letter, Justice Mandokhel also referenced Justice Shah’s remarks on the 26th Constitutional Amendment but chose not to comment on the issue, as related petitions are currently under Supreme Court consideration. However, he emphasized their shared belief in the judiciary’s independence and impartiality, underlining that judicial appointments must ensure competency, integrity, and adherence to rules. He noted that the Judicial Commission was restructured following the 26th Amendment to uphold these principles.
Justice Mandokhel, who chairs the committee drafting rules for judicial appointments, highlighted that the chief justice of Pakistan authorized the formation of this committee. The committee has already convened twice, incorporating Justice Shah’s recommendations into the draft, which was shared with him before the letter’s issuance.
Justice Mandokhel advised Justice Shah to propose names of judges for high courts only after the rules are finalized and approved by the Judicial Commission.
Previously, Justice Shah had expressed concerns in his letter about the impact of the 26th Amendment on the judiciary’s role in appointments. He stated that the amendment had disrupted the balance of power, granting the executive a dominant role in the Judicial Commission. Justice Shah warned that any judicial appointment made without strict adherence to clear rules and established criteria could undermine public trust in the judiciary.
He also underscored the importance of transparent rules for judicial independence, asserting that Article 175(4) of the Constitution empowers the Judicial Commission to draft these rules. Without such measures, he argued, decisions made by the commission could be deemed unconstitutional. Justice Shah cautioned against the potential for political appointments due to the judiciary’s diminished representation within the Judicial Commission.
