No hard talk at JCP meeting: member

ISLAMABAD: Akhtar Hussain, a member of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), on Monday denied reports of any heated discussions during the commission’s recent meeting.

Speaking on Geo News programme ‘Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Ke Saath, he clarified that no harsh words were exchanged during the proceedings. Hussain explained that during the meeting, Supreme Court senior judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah raised concerns over the 26th Constitutional Amendment and the appointment of new judges. Justice Muneeb Akhtar supported his position, suggesting that the JCP should delay the meeting until the issues surrounding the 26th amendment and the seniority of judges transferred to the Islamabad High Court were resolved.

However, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) rejected the proposal, asserting that it was the JCP’s constitutional duty to proceed with the meeting and that it could not be postponed. As a result, the meeting was boycotted by some members.

Akhtar Hussain expressed his concern over the seniority issue of Justice Sarfaraz Dogar, a Lahore High Court (LHC) judge recently transferred to the Islamabad High Court. He described the transfer as “controversial,” noting that the CJP personally agreed with this view, although the CJP clarified that it was his personal opinion and not a judicial stance. Akhtar said that, in his view, until the seniority issue was resolved, the newly appointed Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court should not be considered for a role in the Supreme Court.

In the same meeting, it was suggested that Justice Miangul Aurangzeb be appointed as an acting Supreme Court judge, which Akhtar Hussain stated was unanimously approved by the commission. He added that after the appointment of six new judges, a further appointment for taxation matters was deemed necessary, and Justice Aurangzeb’s name was subsequently presented and accepted without objection.

Regarding the Lahore High Court’s role, Akhtar Hussain explained that the appointment of judges from LHC was delayed due to reservations about two particular judges. Following the appointment of six Supreme Court judges, it was agreed that the selection from LHC would be revisited at a later date. He clarified that the decision was not politically motivated but was a matter of internal discussion among the JCP members.

On the 26th amendment, Akhtar Hussain stressed that the Constitutional Court should make a definitive ruling. He acknowledged differing opinions within the legal community, noting the Pakistan Bar Council and Supreme Court Bar Association have contrasting views on the matter. He expressed his personal belief that constitutional issues should be approached from a judicial, rather than political, perspective.

“There are two competing views—one from PTI, the other from the government,” he said. “As an institution, we must remain independent and address constitutional matters constitutionally.”