After a dispute over the appointment of a High Court judge of the Supreme Court of the Pakistan Justice Commission (JCP), the Supreme Court released a recording of the July 29 meeting to clarify the matter.
Judge Kaji Faez Isa and Judge Sardar Tarik Masoud disagreed with a statement issued by the Supreme Court’s Public Relations Office after the session, saying they did not accurately reflect the outcome of the discussion. rice field.
According to Supreme Court handouts, proposals to postpone the meeting include Judge Igers ul Asan, Judge Sajad Ali Shah, former Judge Salmad Jalal Osmany, and Pakistani Justice Secretary Ashter Ausaf Ali. Supported by.
Judge Isa and his Judge Masood argued that this was not the case as the meeting abruptly ended after Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial left.
As a result of the objections of both judges, the Supreme Court, at the direction of the CJP, will publish the audio on its website, where it will be able to hear the selected transcript of the session.
This move was not accepted by some members of the Hoyukai, but others supported it as the right decision for “transparency” reasons.
Geo.tv We contacted legal experts to find out if such unprecedented moves could lead to judicial transparency and divisional expansion. In addition, the lawyer was asked if such a move would damage the reputation of the incumbent judge and was openly discussed at the meeting. Finally, a private audio of his session without the consent of all attendees. I was asked to clarify if it needed to be published..
made public in their entirety’
“I think there are pros and cons to disclosing or disclosing audio recordings of the Judiciary Committee meeting in this way.” The minutes of the meeting being publicly announced and published are related to funding eligibility. I will make a statement.
The judge being discussed in the session was not present and will not have the opportunity to rebut or respond to these comments.
I believe these copies should not have been made public until the consent of all nine participating members was obtained. Of course, the comments about the judges were made under the premise of secrecy. If that assumption was wrong and the Chief Justice intended to make these comments public, then in all fairness I should have asked all members if they agreed.
Therefore, in my opinion, it would be better if only the final results were published instead of the deliberations of the Judiciary Commission being fully published.
‘Highly unusual but should be a regular practice’
JCP deliberations should be made public. Recording releases are very rare, but should be done on a regular basis. The JC rules should be amended so that procedures are not open to the public.
Reviews must be honest, relevant and respectful. Therefore, I do not believe that the judge’s reputation is unduly damaged by the trial. In my view, the cost of embarrassing facts coming to light during a trial outweighs the public’s right to know about the appeals process. ”
‘Should be a regular feature’
“The audio appears to have been released without the consent of all members of the Judiciary Committee. It was either rejected or actually postponed for publication, the rules are very opaque and not transparent at all. No criteria are actually specified for how judges appointed to the Supreme Court will be evaluated.
[Regarding] the sitting judge’s reputation shouldn’t be much of an issue, especially since the JCP discusses issues of honesty, reputation, and case determination. I think it would make more sense if the Judiciary Commission process was more transparent.
Now that this has been made public, perhaps this is a normal function and with the consent of all members, deliberations on the appointment of judges should be conducted in an open and transparent manner.
It’s safe to say that we’re not just releasing
audio – it’s time to really change the procedures and rules of the Judiciary Commission and develop proper standards that don’t rely solely on senior notions. Whatever judges are chosen, they should be chosen according to clear criteria and decisions should not be made solely by the Chief Justice. It should be a more democratic process.”