By Zeeshan Zafar Hashmi
The primary argument against the procedure of appointment of the superior judiciary as laid out in the Al-Jehad Trust case was that it placed too much power in the hands of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. Since the consultation of the Chief Justice was considered as binding, it was thought that this increased the chances of a Chief Justice exercising his power to appoint judges arbitrarily rather than having accord to qualifications such as seniority.
Furthermore, it was argued that the appointment procedure reduced the role of the executive to that of a rubber stamp, as the President’s reasons for rejecting a nominee of the chief justice could ultimately be struck down by the Court under the aegis of the Chief Justice. This did not seem to be resulting in an “efficient” operation of the constitution, in the words of British economist Walter Bagehot.
