Hamid Khan
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Senator and senior lawyer Hamid Khan has announced that the lawyer community will challenge the recent nominations of six judges to the Supreme Court by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). He emphasized that the legal fraternity will continue its “protest movement” against what he described as “illegitimate appointments.”
Speaking on the program Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Sath, Hamid Khan strongly criticized the judicial commission’s decision, stating that the nominations lacked legitimacy. He pointed out that two senior judges and opposition lawmakers walked out of the meeting in protest, which, in his view, rendered the appointments void. “The newly nominated Supreme Court judges will have to go,” he asserted.
The controversy arose after the JCP nominated six high court judges for elevation to the Supreme Court. The selected judges include Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, Justice Shakeel Ahmad, and Justice Aamer Farooq. Additionally, the commission also nominated Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb for appointment as an Acting Judge of the Supreme Court.
The nominations have sparked opposition from several quarters, including four Supreme Court judges and the PTI, especially following the recent transfer of judges to the Islamabad High Court. Hamid Khan argued that the entire appointment process lacked consensus and described it as a “unilateral selection.”
“At the moment, it may not be possible to overturn these appointments immediately, but our struggle will be long-term. We will continue to resist these decisions because there was originally only one vacancy in the Supreme Court—how can you fill seven or eight positions all at once?” he questioned.
When asked about the legal community’s next course of action, Hamid Khan insisted that the matter should be heard by a full court rather than a constitutional bench, drawing a parallel to their earlier demand for a full bench to deliberate on the 26th Constitutional Amendment. “This issue pertains to the appointment of Supreme Court judges and is not connected to the formation of a constitutional court,” he clarified.
He further stated that individuals who abuse their powers and violate the rule of law do not last long. “Our struggle may take six months or even a year, but the situation in the Supreme Court and other high courts is simply not sustainable in its current form,” he said.
Regarding the potential composition of a full court, Hamid Khan stressed that the newly appointed judges should not be included in any bench reviewing their own appointments. “They cannot be judges in their own case,” he argued, further stating that the matter should not be left to a constitutional bench alone.
Judges’ Transfer Controversy
The controversy over judicial appointments is closely linked to the recent transfer of judges to the Islamabad High Court. Earlier this month, the JCP had sought nominations from all high courts, asking for a list of five senior judges from each.
Initially, the Islamabad High Court recommended three judges—Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb—because the remaining two judges, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri and Justice Babar Sattar, did not meet the minimum requirement of five years of service.
However, after Lahore High Court’s Justice Sarfraz Dogar and two other judges from the Sindh High Court and Balochistan High Court were transferred to the IHC, the court administration revised its seniority list. Justice Sarfraz Dogar was subsequently designated as the senior puisne judge, making him eligible for nomination to the JCP.
Following these controversial transfers, five IHC judges raised concerns about the revised seniority list and submitted a formal representation to the IHC chief justice. A copy of their objection was also sent to Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi.
The protesting judges argued that any transferred judge must take a fresh oath under Article 194 of the Constitution, which would place them at the bottom of the IHC’s seniority list. Consequently, they claimed that such judges should not be eligible for immediate consideration for the position of IHC chief justice.
With lawyers gearing up to challenge the appointments in the Supreme Court and protests continuing, the judicial crisis appears far from over. The coming months are likely to see intense legal battles and increased pressure on the judiciary over the legitimacy of these nominations.
