Presidential delay in judicial appointments: IHC reserves verdict on petition’s maintainability

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) reserved its verdict on the maintainability of a petition challenging delay by the President Asif Ali Zardari in approving a summary for appointment and confirmation of judges in various High Courts.

A single judge bench of Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir on Thursday heard a petition, filed by advocate Luqman Zafar Chaudhary to direct the president to approve summary regarding the appointment of judges in the High Courts.

Zahid Asif Chaudhry, representing the petitioner, argued that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) on July 20 and 21 had recommended the appointments of 19 additional judges and the confirmation of five judges to the Islamabad, Lahore, Sindh, Balochistan and Peshawar high courts. He submitted that summary had reportedly not been approved by the president despite the lapse of 15 days’ period, under Article 48 of the Constitution.

After the JCP, presided over by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, recommendations the summary was forwarded by the prime minister to the president for assent.

During the proceeding, Justice Arbab repeatedly asked whether a constitutional writ could be issued against the president. The court also observed that the judgements cited by the petitioner did not support the proposition advanced by his counsel for the court to issue directives to the president and asked the lawyer to identify any decision in which a court had issued directions to the president regarding the exercise of powers under Article 48 of the Constitution.

Article 48 of the Constitution states that the president shall act “on and in accordance with the advice of the cabinet or the prime minister”. However, it adds, the president can ask the cabinet or the prime minister to reconsider the advice within 15 days of receiving it and shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after reconsideration within 10 days.

The counsel argued that the president had not yet given his assent nor returned the said summary but held it without any legal justification. He further contended that the Constitution “contemplated no third option of indefinite silence or inaction”. The petitioner maintained that the delay in presidential assent to judicial appointments has begun to affect the functioning of the superior judiciary, with the term of an additional judge of the Sindh High Court (SHC) having already expired and four additional judges of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) facing a similar situation within days.

The petition sought directions for the Presidency to disclose when it had received the summary and explain the reasons for the delay, besides asking the court to direct the president, through his secretary, to immediately approve the summary.

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.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026