A petition submitted to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has challenged President Asif Ali Zardari’s delay in approving the appointment of judges to several high courts across Pakistan. The petitioner argues that the president’s failure to act on the recommendations has created a serious constitutional issue and worsened the shortage of judges, affecting the country’s justice system. The petition was filed by Advocate Luqman Zafar Chaudhry through his legal counsel, Zahid Asif Chaudhry. It requests the court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the president, through his secretary, to immediately approve the summary sent by the prime minister. The summary contains the recommendations of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) for appointments to the Islamabad, Lahore, Sindh, and Balochistan High Courts, along with the confirmation of several additional judges. According to the petition, the Judicial Commission, chaired by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, completed the constitutional process by finalizing its recommendations on July 20 and 21. These recommendations were subsequently forwarded to the president under Article 48 of the Constitution through the prime minister. However, the president has neither approved the summary nor returned it for reconsideration, despite the constitutional process requiring timely action. The petitioner maintains that Article 48 allows the president to return the prime minister’s advice only once within 15 days for reconsideration. Beyond that, the Constitution does not permit indefinite delay or silence. Therefore, the petition argues that the president is constitutionally obligated to approve the recommendations once the prescribed period has passed. It further states that the delay disrupted the oath-taking ceremony for the recommended judges, which had been scheduled for July 27. As a result, the ceremony was postponed indefinitely, leaving several judicial positions vacant and increasing the burden on existing judges. The petition also argues that the president’s inaction effectively transforms a ceremonial constitutional responsibility into an unauthorized veto power, something the Constitution does not allow. It claims this undermines judicial independence protected under Articles 2A and 175(3) of the Constitution. Referring to previous Supreme Court judgments, the petitioner emphasizes that judicial appointments must be completed through a transparent, collaborative, and time-bound constitutional process without executive interference. The petition also compares the president’s role under Article 48 with Article 75, which governs presidential assent to legislation and similarly requires action within a specified timeframe. According to the petitioner, the continued delay has created an acute shortage of judges, slowing the disposal of cases and affecting citizens’ constitutional rights to a fair trial and access to justice under Articles 9, 10A, and 25. The petition also raises concerns that the delay may have been influenced by political considerations rather than constitutional requirements. Citing media reports and public statements, it requests the court to determine when the Presidency received the summary, seek an explanation for the delay, declare the continued inaction unlawful, and prevent any action inconsistent with the Judicial Commission’s recommendations until the case is decided. The controversy has emerged amid a wider constitutional debate regarding the president’s authority in judicial appointments. While earlier Supreme Court decisions have held that the president cannot reject recommendations made by the Judicial Commission, Article 175A(8) does not clearly specify how quickly the president must act. Legal experts believe the issue may ultimately require judicial interpretation to clarify the constitutional limits of the president’s role in the appointment process.
