ISLAMABAD:
Since the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, adhocism has taken deeper root within the superior judiciary, with several high courts still lacking permanent leadership.
Despite four months having passed, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) has yet to meet and appoint permanent chief justices for the Sindh, Peshawar, and Islamabad High Courts.
The Balochistan High Court also functioned without a permanent chief justice for over three months. On May 19, the JCP appointed Justice Muhammad Ejaz Swati as BHC chief justice, but only for a brief two-week term before his retirement on June 5. Justice Rozi Khan Barech, second in seniority at the BHC, has since taken over as acting chief justice.
In Islamabad, Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar has been serving as acting chief justice for four months. His seniority is being contested in the Supreme Court, which may explain the delay in his permanent appointment. However, no such justification has been offered for delays in appointments to the Sindh, Peshawar, and Balochistan High Courts.
Historically, since the 18th Amendment, the JCP had not delayed the appointment of permanent chief justices to this extent.
Under the current constitutional setup, the executive now plays a dominant role in judicial appointments. Yet, senior judges—including Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi—have made little effort to challenge or rebalance this dynamic.
During Justice Afridi’s tenure as CJP, about 50 judges have been appointed to superior courts, many with executive backing. Now, the appointment of a permanent chief justice seems virtually impossible without government approval. This has allowed the executive to maintain control through “like-minded” acting chief justices in key courts.
Earlier, the government, reportedly with the support of former CJP Qazi Faez Isa, blocked the elevation of Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan—then seen as a possible LHC chief justice—by promoting him to the Supreme Court instead.
Currently, the executive is reportedly hesitant to elevate LHC Chief Justice Alia Neelum, as the Punjab government remains content with the present judicial setup.
In Sindh, indecision persists. According to sources, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) will determine who becomes the permanent SHC chief justice. However, legal experts within the PPP remain divided over the nomination.
In Peshawar, Justice Syed Mohammad Attique Shah—second in seniority—has been made acting chief justice. The delay in naming a permanent chief justice there is said to stem from political and institutional considerations.
Concerns have also emerged over the exclusion of senior judges from permanent or acting roles due to strained relationships or lack of favor from influential quarters. PHC Justice Ejaz Anwar, despite his seniority, was neither appointed as acting chief justice nor elevated to the Supreme Court. Similar obstacles have faced BHC’s Justice Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail, whose stalled elevation is attributed to judicial politics and reportedly tense relations with some senior judges.
As a result, both judges are now seen as unlikely to secure permanent chief justice roles in their respective courts.
Commenting on the Islamabad High Court, lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii described the situation as a strategy to maintain the current power structure:
“It’s a way to prolong the farce that is the new Dogar court. There are good judges there, but they’re being kept in limbo and distracted.”
Regarding Sindh, he added:
“It’s like dangling a carrot endlessly. Senior judges are made to compete, unsure of the goal or timeline. It keeps them cautious—and that suits the powers that be.”
Lawyers are increasingly calling for senior judges, who have benefited from the 26th Amendment, to take concrete steps to restore the judiciary’s independence, which they argue has been steadily eroded over the past six months.
