Islamabad High Court orders government to explain constitutional consequences of delayed presidential assent to PM's advice on judicial appointments.

The Islamabad High Court rendered a ruling on Monday concerning a public interest petition filed by advocate Luqman Zafar. Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir issued notices to President Asif Ali Zardari, the Federation of Pakistan and the Attorney General, directing each to submit concise reports explaining the dates on which the Prime Minister’s advice was forwarded and the actions taken, if any. The petition centers on President Zardari’s hold‑up of judicial appointments recommended by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. In meetings on July 20‑21, the commission, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, suggested appointing 19 additional judges and confirming five existing judges of the high courts. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif forwarded the summary to the president under Article 48 of the Constitution, but assent has not yet been given. Counsel for the petitioner argued that Article 48(1) uses the word “shall,” creating an obligation on the president to act upon the prime minister’s advice. The proviso allows the advice to be returned for reconsideration within 15 days, after which the president must act within ten days. The delay was further claimed to hurt the administration of justice, especially as superior courts face mounting case backlogs. Justice Tahir instructed that notices be served through all available channels and that the Additional Attorney General ensure the respondents file separate reports as directed. The case is scheduled for hearing on August 11. In practical terms, four additional judges of the Peshawar High Court whose confirmations were recommended by the commission lost their positions when their terms expired on August 4. Similarly, an additional judge of the Sindh High Court, whose tenure had been extended by six months, relinquished office on July 29. The oath‑taking ceremony for the newly recommended judges, slated for July 27, was indefinitely postponed because the president had neither granted assent nor returned the summary, reportedly keeping it “without any legal justification.”