SINDH HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, SUKKUR versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND JUSTICE, ISLAMABAD
Arts 175A and I99 Constitutional Appeals High Court Additional Judges, Judicial Commission Authorization and Parliamentary Committee Scope Parliamentary Committee denied the confirmation / permanent appointment of Additional High Court judges whose names were recommended by the Judicial Commission. Legal Status and Procedures = Members of the Judicial Commission (\ Commission \) agreed, after full consideration, in the evaluation report submitted by professional competence, qualifications, legal qualifications, veterans, commitments and commission members. As suggested by the names of the six additional judges of the High Court. The Parliamentary Committee (\ Committee \) submitted its name to the Parliamentary Committee for certification and. The Committee accepted the Commission's recommendations in relation to the four nominated candidates (s), but refused to accept the recommendation in relation to the two judges in question on the basis of the Chief's observation. Produced by the High Court Justice in pro forma; based on information from the intelligence agencies and based on information from the Federal Revenue Board by the interveners (two said judges) Professional competence, competence, legal The question of eligibility and overall suitability of a potential nominee fell within the special domain. The Commission; that Article 175A of the Constitution requires judicial appointments to be decided by a majority, therefore, the remarks and opinions presented by the Chief Justice in its supporting form are excused for refusing to accept the Commission's unanimous decision. Cannot be used as. ; The Committee's reliance on the Intelligence Reports of agencies, which refused to confirm the names of the two men, said the judges were not justified. The Committee's position that the Federal
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
