JCP Panels Exclude Supreme Court Judges in High Court Vetting

The Judicial Commission of Pakistan has notified separate interview committees for vetting nominees as additional judges in four high courts, but the composition of the panels has triggered attention because no Supreme Court judge has been included in any of them.

The notification was issued in Islamabad on Wednesday with the approval of the chief justice of Pakistan in his capacity as JCP chairperson. The committees will examine candidates nominated until July 4, 2026, for the Lahore High Court, Islamabad High Court, Sindh High Court and Balochistan High Court.

The move is being viewed as an important institutional development because judicial appointments have remained a sensitive issue in Pakistan’s constitutional and political landscape. The new panels are meant to conduct interviews before the matter proceeds within the broader JCP framework.

For the Lahore High Court and Islamabad High Court, the same seven-member committee has been formed under the chairmanship of Federal Constitutional Court Judge Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi. The panel also includes the chief justices of the LHC and IHC, the attorney general, two senators and a representative of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

For the Sindh High Court and Balochistan High Court, FCC Judge Aamer Farooq has been assigned the role of committee chair. The Sindh panel includes the SHC chief justice, while the Balochistan panel includes the BHC chief justice, with the attorney general, senators and bar representative also part of both committees.

The absence of Supreme Court judges from all four panels marks a notable departure from expectations around judicial hierarchy. Although the committees include senior judicial and legal figures, the decision places the Federal Constitutional Court and high court leadership at the centre of the initial interview stage.

The notification has emerged against the backdrop of delayed high court appointments following changes introduced through the 27th Constitutional Amendment. That amendment empowered the JCP to frame rules for its own procedures, including the assessment, interview and evaluation of candidates for judicial office.

According to the reported background, the JCP’s rule-making committee had earlier considered competing proposals on how candidate interviews should be conducted. One proposal suggested that the full commission should interview every candidate, while another favoured a smaller committee to screen nominees and present recommendations before the commission.

The final structure indicates that the smaller committee model has been adopted for now. Supporters may argue that this can streamline appointment work and reduce delays, while critics may question whether excluding Supreme Court judges from the interview process affects institutional balance, transparency or confidence among the legal community.

For Pakistan’s justice system, the development matters because high court vacancies directly affect case backlogs, access to justice and the functioning of constitutional courts. The next stage will show whether the interview committees can complete scrutiny smoothly and whether their recommendations lead to timely appointments without further institutional controversy.