Judicial Commission Boycott and Legal Perspectives: Insights from Legal Experts

The recent boycott by two judges, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Muneeb Akhtar, of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s meeting on Monday, alongside the boycott by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) representatives Barrister Ali Zafar and Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, has raised significant questions about the constitutional and legal standing of the Commission’s decisions moving forward. The Commission’s meeting continued after a vote was held to maintain the session.

When asked whether the decisions of the Judicial Commission would still hold constitutional and legal validity despite the absence of four members, Barrister Ali Zafar stated that the PTI members protested the Commission’s handling of seniority issues and, therefore, decided to boycott the meeting. He emphasized that according to the rules, the Commission can continue its proceedings even in the event of a boycott.

On the same day, lawyers protested the 26th Constitutional Amendment, demanding that all Supreme Court judges hear the case through a full court and that the appointment process be paused until the decision on the amendment is made. However, due to the small number of lawyers participating in the protest, its impact was limited.

**Is there still hope for opposition on the 26th Constitutional Amendment in the Supreme Court?**

Legal experts provided their insights regarding the ongoing matters of the 26th Constitutional Amendment. Kamran Murtaza, a renowned lawyer and Senator from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, spoke with V News and pointed out that although the opposition demands a full court hearing, it is likely that the decision might still be in favor of the amendment. However, he noted that it remains speculative, as new judges might make independent decisions on the matter, potentially invalidating the amendment.

Murtaza clarified that the increase in the number of Supreme Court judges was not due to the 26th Constitutional Amendment but was a result of subsequent legislation. He also critiqued the lawyers’ protest, suggesting that the divided nature of the legal community had weakened their impact. He emphasized that the amendment was a prolonged process and that protests now seemed more reactive than strategic.

**Legal Community’s Reactions and Protests:**

Amanullah Kanrani, a former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, expressed optimism that new judges could play a constructive role. He compared current events to previous historical instances, such as the actions of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and General Pervez Musharraf, suggesting that those in power may ultimately face consequences for their decisions. Kanrani highlighted that despite the government’s efforts to control the narrative, the lawyers’ protest had sparked a wider movement, which was likely to grow.

Regarding the recent 26th Constitutional Amendment, Syed Amjad Shah, a member of the Pakistan Bar Council, discussed the legitimacy of judicial appointments. He argued that despite political protests, the appointments of judges were made based on seniority, with no undue influence from the government. He also critiqued the political motives behind the lawyers’ protests, suggesting they were driven by PTI’s interests. According to Shah, these protests were unlikely to succeed, as they lacked broad legal community support.

**Conclusion:**

The ongoing legal and political drama surrounding the Judicial Commission’s decisions and the 26th Constitutional Amendment highlights the deep divisions within Pakistan’s legal and political systems. While the boycotts and protests have created significant noise, the legal experts interviewed remain divided on the future course of action. Some see potential for new judges to bring positive change, while others believe the amendment will face minimal resistance in the Supreme Court. Regardless, the situation remains fluid, and the next steps will likely shape Pakistan’s judicial landscape for years to come.