Presidential approval: Petition filed against delay in judicial appointments

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has been asked to direct the President to approve the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s (JCP) recommendations regarding the appointment of judges to the Islamabad, Lahore, Sindh, and Balochistan High Courts.

The IHC has also been requested to direct the President to confirm additional judges already serving in the superior judiciary.

Advocate Luqman Zafar Chaudhry, through his counsel Zahid Asif Chaudhry, on Wednesday filed a petition challenging President Asif Ali Zardari’s delay in approving a summary forwarded by the prime minister regarding the appointment of new judges and the confirmation of additional judges in the high courts.

READ ALSO: Addl judges for LHC: JCP recommends confirmation, appointment

The petitioner argued that the JCP, chaired by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, completed the constitutional process by recommending the appointment on July 20 and 21. Thereafter, a summary was forwarded to the President by the Prime Minister under Article 48 of the Constitution.

The petition stated that the President had “not yet given his assent nor returned the said summary but held it without any legal justification”. It argued that the Constitution assigns the President only a limited role in the judicial appointments process.

It further stated that the oath-taking ceremony for the recommended judges had been scheduled for July 27. However, it “could not take place and stood indefinitely postponed” because the president had not approved the summary.

According to the petition, Article 48 requires the president to act on the advice of the prime minister. It permits only one exception: returning the advice for reconsideration within 15 days.

“The Constitution thus contemplated no third option of indefinite silence or inaction,” the petition argued. It added that once the constitutional period had expired, the president became bound to act on the advice tendered.

The petitioner contended that by withholding the summary, the president had effectively converted “a narrow, time-bound and essentially formal” constitutional function into “a power of veto or indefinite deferral”. It argued that such a course undermines the independence of the judiciary guaranteed under Articles 2A and 175(3) of the Constitution.

The petitioner by citing previous Supreme Court judgements argued that the constitutional framework requires judicial appointments to proceed through a “transparent, collegial and time-bound process free of executive discretion”.

It further maintained that executive authority “must flow strictly and in the manner prescribed by the Constitution”. The same principle, it argued, applies with “even greater force” to the president’s role under Article 48.

Drawing an analogy with Article 75 of the Constitution, which governs presidential assent to legislation, the petitioner argued that the Constitution consistently envisages a time-bound role for the President. “It did not admit of indefinite inaction,” the petition said.

The petition further argued that the president’s continued failure to act constitutes a failure to perform “a mandatory public and constitutional duty”. It said a writ of mandamus was therefore the appropriate constitutional remedy. It also argued that the delay had left the superior judiciary functioning with “an acute shortage of judges”.

According to the petition, the shortage is “crippling the administration of justice”, delaying the disposal of cases and infringing litigants’ fundamental rights to access to justice and a fair trial under Articles 9, 10A and 25 of the Constitution.

The petitioner also alleged that, based on “news reports and public statements attributed to functionaries of the State”, there were “grave apprehensions” that the delay stemmed not from a bona fide constitutional exercise. Instead the delay resulted from “extraneous political considerations unconnected with the constitutional scheme of Article 175A”.

The petition requested the court to direct the president to immediately approve the summary. It also asked the court to declare the continued failure to act beyond the constitutionally prescribed 15-day period “illegal, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect”.

It further sought directions requiring the respondents to disclose when the Presidency received the summary and explain the reasons for the delay.

The petition also sought directions restraining the respondents from taking “any steps inconsistent with the recommendations duly made by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan” until the case is finally decided.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026