The appointment of judges in Gilgit-Baltistan remains on hold due to a standing stay order, as confirmed by the region’s Advocate General. During court proceedings, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar emphasized that lifting the stay could enable judge appointments through a consultative approach.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel questioned Parliament’s inaction on the issue and suggested that legislative measures could address the matter. In response, the Attorney General noted that such action would require a constitutional amendment.
Justice Mandokhel also proposed amending the Proposed Order of 2019 to facilitate the judicial appointment process. However, the Attorney General clarified that the federal government does not support or endorse the Proposed Order.
Advocate Asadullah raised objections to the 2018 Order, referencing a 2020 Supreme Court ruling by a seven-member bench that mandates its implementation. He also expressed reservations about the implications of judge appointments made under the interim Gilgit-Baltistan government.
The Advocate General revealed that over 8,000 cases are currently pending in the Gilgit-Baltistan Supreme Appellate Court due to the prolonged absence of judicial appointments.
Justice Mandokhel highlighted that the 2018 Order remains in effect and suggested that if the government does not approve the 2019 Proposed Order, it should introduce a new framework to resolve the impasse. He found the 2019 proposal reasonable and urged Parliament to either legislate on it or present an alternative.
Justice Ameen-ud-Din Khan directed that appointments proceed under the 2018 Order, though the Attorney General opposed any conditional appointments for Gilgit-Baltistan.
Justice Mazhar also voiced concern over the delays in justice delivery in the region, stressing the importance of promptly appointing judges to ensure the efficient functioning of the judiciary.
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan noted that appointing judges under the 2018 Order would align more closely with the federal government’s preferences.
Advocate Asadullah Khan added that while they agree with four out of five proposed judicial appointments, they have concerns regarding one nominee not selected under Section 34.
The court has decided to continue hearing the case on its merits. However, proceedings were adjourned until the next day as the Attorney General began presenting his arguments.
