(24News) Supreme Court Judge and Chairman Rules Committee Justice Jamal mandukhel replied to the letter of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, wrote in the letter that your letter written on December 12 was received, you are aware that after the 26th amendment, the Judicial Commission has been rebuilt.
He wrote that the commission authorized the Chief Justice to form a committee to make the rules and the Chief justice formed a committee headed by me to make the rules. Two meetings of the committee have already been held and your suggested recommendations have already been included in the draft. Yes, it was shared with you personally before your letter.
The letter further states that Attorney General Mansoor awan, Ali zafar, Farooq H. Naik and Akhtar hussain have been nominated as committee members, your suggestions have been taken into consideration before and will be seen by tomorrow’s letter also, you should also give your suggestions to the Rules Committee. can
Justice Jamal Mandukhel said that you spoke about the 26th constitutional amendment,but I will not respond to it because the petitions on it are pending in the Supreme Court.
Must Read:Counterfeiters are coming back with new ways,NAB warned the public
He said that most of your suggestions have been incorporated in the Rules of the Judicial Commission,but the mandate of the Rules Committee is only to draft the rules for the appointment of judges.
According to the letter, Justice Jamal Mandukhel said that you have suggested the names of judges for three high courts, but he suggested that these names should be given after the approval of the Rules Committee. Suggestions are welcome, and as per the constitutional mandate that the judiciary must be autonomous and impartial, the Rules Committee is committed to devising best practices to ensure this.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel further wrote that your proposal will be considered at the December 16 meeting of the rules Committee, and that any of your suggestions are awaited before the draft rules are prepared, before the Supreme Court. Senior Justice Mansoor Ali Shah of K had written a letter to Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel stating that all steps to appoint judges without clear rules would be unconstitutional,and could lead to political appointments in the judiciary,which It will affect public confidence.
Also read:Vandalism case, interim bail extension of Asad Qaiser
How is the Rules Committee addressing concerns about political influence in judicial appointments?
Interview with justice Jamal Mandukhel on Judicial Appointments and the Role of the Rules Committee
Time.news Editor: Thank you for joining us, Justice Mandukhel. Recently, ther has been significant discussion regarding the formation of the judicial Commission and the appointment processes for judges. Can you elaborate on the changes introduced following the 26th amendment?
Justice Jamal Mandukhel: Thank you for having me. Following the 26th amendment, we have seen a reorganization of the Judicial Commission, which now empowers the Chief Justice to form a committee dedicated to structuring the rules for judicial appointments.I had the honor of chairing this committee, and we’ve already conducted two meetings to integrate suggestions into a comprehensive draft.
Time.news Editor: There has been a correspondence between you and Justice Mansoor Ali shah regarding the incorporation of various recommendations.Could you provide insight into those discussions?
Justice Jamal Mandukhel: Certainly. Justice ShahS letter raised some significant points, and I acknowledged that his suggestions were considered during our committee meetings.Many of his proposals have already been included in the evolving draft rules. It is indeed crucial that we maintain an open dialog, and I encourage all justices to contribute further recommendations before finalizing the draft.
Time.news Editor: Justice Shah also expressed concerns that appointing judges without clear rules might lead to unconstitutional practices and political influence. What steps is the Rules Committee taking to address these concerns?
Justice Jamal Mandukhel: Those concerns are indeed valid. The committee is fully committed to ensuring that the judicial appointment process remains autonomous and impartial. We are drafting rules that adhere to constitutional mandates and aim to prevent any potential for political influence. The latest proposals will be discussed in our upcoming meeting on December 16, where we will prioritize transparency and integrity.
Time.news Editor: How do you see the role of the Rules Committee evolving in light of these challenges?
Justice Jamal Mandukhel: The Rules Committee plays a pivotal role in ensuring that best practices are implemented in the appointment of judges. Our mandate is to establish clear guidelines that are not only aligned with constitutional provisions but also cultivate public confidence in the judiciary. The committee will continue to remain proactive in seeking and integrating relevant suggestions from all stakeholders.
Time.news Editor: What practical advice would you offer to legal professionals and the general public regarding the judicial appointment process?
justice Jamal Mandukhel: I encourage legal professionals to stay engaged and proactive in the discussions surrounding judicial rules. They should provide well-thought-out suggestions that can enhance our draft. For the public, it’s vital to remain informed about how judges are appointed, as this transparency contributes to a more robust judicial system. Upholding an impartial judiciary is key to the rule of law and societal trust in our institutions.
Time.news Editor: Thank you,Justice Mandukhel,for your insights. It’s vital for both legal practitioners and citizens to understand the mechanisms behind judicial appointments, especially in ensuring an independent judiciary.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel: Thank you for shining a light on this crucial subject.Open discussions and community engagement are essential as we navigate these challenges together.