ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday sought an explanation from the federal government over the delay in processing a summary concerning the appointment of judges to the high courts.
A division of the court headed by Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir issued notices to the president and prime minister through their respective secretaries and directed the relevant authorities to submit their responses by Wednesday.
The proceedings followed a writ petition challenging the apparent delay in the approval of the summary containing nominations for judicial appointments.
Justice Tahir Questions Government’s Handling
During the hearing, Justice Tahir questioned Additional Attorney General Rashid Hafeez about the status of the summary and why the constitutional process had not been completed.
The judge observed that it appeared the federal government had shown limited interest in the matter.
“We thought the federal government would fulfil its responsibility, but that has not happened,” Justice Tahir remarked.
He also asked whether the government was aware of the exact stage at which the summary was pending and sought clarification regarding the appointments and confirmations of judges to the superior judiciary.
The judge further noted that confirmations of judges of the Sindh High Court (SHC) and Peshawar High Court (PHC), which had been approved by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), were also reportedly stalled.
According to the court, more than 18 days had passed since the summary was forwarded.
Dispute Over Constitutional Deadline
The case also involves a legal question over the constitutional timeline for presidential action on judicial appointment advice.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel, Zahid Asif Chaudhry, argued that the Constitution clearly establishes the consequences once the prescribed period has expired.
He maintained that the president could not keep the summary pending indefinitely.
Additional Attorney General Rashid Hafeez, however, told the court that the president could no longer reject the summary at this stage.
The issue therefore centres on what constitutional consequences follow when advice relating to judicial appointments remains pending beyond the specified period without being returned for reconsideration.
Petition Challenges Delay in Appointments
The proceedings originated from a public-interest writ petition filed by advocate Luqman Zafar.
According to the petition, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan nominated candidates for appointment as high court judges during meetings held on July 20 and 21, 2026.
The names were subsequently forwarded to the president through the prime minister under Article 175A(8) of the Constitution.
The petitioner contended that no decision had been taken despite the passage of the prescribed period.
The counsel further argued that the Constitution allows the president to return advice for reconsideration within 15 days, but claimed that this period had expired without the advice being either acted upon or returned.
Court Seeks Written Reports
Following Monday’s hearing, the IHC issued a three-page written order seeking reports from the federal government and the Ministry of Law.
The court directed the deputy attorney general to ensure that the government and law ministry submit short written reports explaining the status of the summary.
The reports must specifically identify the date on which the prime minister forwarded the summary to the president and clarify whether any action was taken after it was received.
The court also asked the respondents to explain the constitutional consequences if advice concerning judicial appointments remains pending indefinitely without being acted upon or returned within the period prescribed by the Constitution.
Case to Be Heard Again on Wednesday
The IHC has fixed the matter for further hearing on Wednesday, when the court is expected to review the government’s response and the reports sought by the bench.
The case could have implications for the ongoing process of appointments and confirmations in the superior judiciary, particularly as the court has highlighted delays involving nominations for multiple high courts.
For now, the central issue before the IHC is whether the constitutional procedure for judicial appointments has been followed and what legal consequences may arise from keeping the presidential advice pending beyond the prescribed timeframe.
