In a significant turn of events, Justice Retired Mazhar Alam Mian Khel has followed in the footsteps of his peers, Justice Retired Mushir Alam and Justice Retired Maqbool Baqir, by resigning from the position of ad hoc judge in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. This series of resignations has sent ripples through the judicial landscape, raising questions about the future of ad hoc appointments in the country’s highest court.
The federal government had proposed the names of four retired judges for appointment as ad hoc judges in the Supreme Court. The proposed names included Justice Mushir Alam, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Mazhar Alam Mian Khel, and Justice Maqbool Baqir. These nominations were put forth to address the backlog of cases and enhance the court’s capacity to deliver timely justice.
Today, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) is convening to discuss the proposed appointments of ad hoc judges. The meeting was expected to finalize the inclusion of these experienced jurists to temporarily serve on the Supreme Court bench. However, the wave of resignations has created an unforeseen hurdle in this process.
Justice Retired Mushir Alam was the first to step back, citing a deep sense of disappointment and frustration over the negative social media campaigns following his nomination. In a letter to the Judicial Commission, he expressed his reluctance to serve as an ad hoc judge under the current circumstances, stating, “Allah has honored me more than my position, I am deeply disappointed by the campaign started on social media after the nomination of ad-hoc judges. I apologize for working as an ad-hoc judge in the current situation.”
Following Justice Mushir Alam, Justice Retired Maqbool Baqir also declined the offer. While acknowledging the constitutionality of ad hoc appointments, he stated that his decision was based on personal reasons and the unjustified criticism surrounding the nominations. His resignation added to the growing uncertainty about the feasibility of filling these temporary positions.
Now, reports have emerged that Justice Retired Mazhar Alam Mian Khel has also resigned from the ad hoc judge appointment. Sources indicate that he has formally informed the Judicial Commission of his decision, further complicating the efforts to bolster the Supreme Court with additional judicial capacity.
Despite these setbacks, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood remains the only nominee who has accepted the ad hoc appointment. His willingness to serve highlights a stark contrast to the resignations of his counterparts, who have chosen to step back amidst the controversies and pressures surrounding their nominations.
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party has been vocal in its opposition to the appointment of multiple ad hoc judges simultaneously. PTI Chairman Barrister Gauhar expressed concerns over the unprecedented nature of appointing four ad hoc judges at once, stating, “There is no example of simultaneous appointment of 4 ad hoc judges in the Supreme Court.” He further argued that such appointments would not significantly reduce the caseload and speculated that the move might be linked to specific seats held by PTI members.
The resignation of Justice Mazhar Alam Mian Khel and others signifies a broader issue within the judicial system of Pakistan. It reflects the challenges and controversies inherent in appointing ad hoc judges, especially under a cloud of public and political scrutiny. The Judicial Commission’s efforts to address the Supreme Court’s backlog and enhance its efficiency are now at a crossroads, as the resignations undermine the immediate goal of reinforcing the bench.
This situation calls for a reassessment of the process and criteria for ad hoc appointments. It highlights the need for a more transparent and less contentious approach to temporary judicial appointments to ensure that experienced jurists can contribute effectively without facing undue criticism or pressure.
The series of resignations from proposed ad hoc judges reveals deep-seated issues within Pakistan’s judicial appointment system. As the Judicial Commission meets to deliberate on the future steps, it must navigate these challenges with a focus on maintaining judicial integrity and addressing the concerns that have led to these high-profile resignations. The path forward will require balancing the need for judicial efficiency with the imperative of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary’s independence and fairness.
