HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, BAHAWALPUR versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Article 175A (2), (5), (8) and (12) Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2010, R5 (2) Appointment of Judges Supreme Court, High Courts and Federal Sharia Court Appointments of the Judicial Commission and Parliamentary Committee Functions and Powers Under Article 175A of the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary from the executive jurisdiction was taken by the Judicial Commission (\ commission) of judicial appointments in a free and transparent collective debate under judicial appointments. The Parliamentary Committee (\ Committee \), which was the constitutional selection body, relied on such fundamental principles. It was constitutional that collective constitutional ethics should follow the entire process of judicial appointment, no matter the process of appointment. Who was accustomed to such collective action. Article 175A of the Constitution lacks the constitutional constitution of judicial appointments: For the Supreme Court judges, the name of the candidate provided for the two-step appointment process must be approved by both constitutional bodies, the Commission and the Committee, where a nominal commission Was approved by the committee but was not approved by the committee. The process was concluded and the candidate was not selected except in the two-phase selection process when the committee failed to get a response within fourteen days after receipt of the nomination from the Commission in two such stages (appointment). Needs action. The role of constitutional bodies (ie, the Commission and the Committee) was not to judge the independent evaluation and evaluation of each other, but to examine and evaluate the candidate independently, after which their opinion was supported. The committee, in the present case, did not veto the commission's decision, but it rejected the candidate only on its own independence.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015
