This is with reference to the editorial Judicial Commission published on 23 Jan, 2011. My question is why the Judicial Commission is not the more suitable body for appointment of judges. It has the chief justice and other senior judges who are cognizant of the competence of the candidates before them for selection. Suitable check and balance is provided by the inclusion of key political figures in the council. For example, for military appointments it is not conceivable that the decisions of the corps commanders would be subject to parliamentary review. If it is allowed, the parliamentarians, not having any direct or indirect contact with the nominees, will be interested only in whether a particular nominee is known to lean towards their party or not.
As to ‘being disciplined by their very peers seems to be a flawed concept’, pray, are not army officers disciplined by their own peers? Does that not make army a more disciplined body or is it otherwise? Learned opinion is that administrative accountability should replace judicial accountability in government organisations. It is thought that this would provide a better check against corruption. However, the idea of making the Supreme Judicial Council also subservient to a parliamentary committee takes the cake in its absurdity.
KHURSHID ANWER
Lahore
Military officers being tried by civil courts, like the recent case of the Lt. General in India? Brilliant stuff. Even I hadnt thought of that. Stay tuned for another editorial on the subject.In-charge, Op-Ed.
