Strong rejection starts a conversation inside the Sindh High Court
Unexpectedly but ethically, Justice Umar Sial of the Sindh High Court turned down to serve on the recently established nine-member constitutional bench. Driven by concerns about judicial seniority and executive intervention, his decision has spurred much discussion on the legal freedom of Pakistan’s court’s internal decision-making process.
Constructing the Bench: Beginning Conflict
Under the 26th Amendment, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) solely announced the creation of a nine-member bench under direction of Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, ninth in seniority. But the candidates for the bench avoided eight senior justices, including Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui.
This decision not only begged questions but also attracted criticism since it reduced seniority as a basic determinant of court appointments. Usually seen as necessary to maintain court objectivity.
The moral position of Justice Umar Sial
Justice Sial sent his misgives in a written letter to bench head Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha. Stressing his worries, he pointed out that highly experienced and strategically avoiding top justices would erode public confidence in the court and demand careful review of such rulings.
Justice Sial sharply disagreed in his letter to what he considered to be the “dangerous perspective of executive interference” in court affairs. Through their involvement in bench composition, he advised running executive members of running the risk of compromising democratic values and eroding public confidence in the court’s independence.
Stakes slow down caseload and justice
These days, the Sindh High Court manages absurd casework. Managing almost 96,000 unresolved cases including 36,000 constitutional petitions, the court runs with just 28 judges against an approved strength of 40.
This backlog highlights the great demand for experienced judges in key roles. Justice Sial underlined the need of choosing top, experienced justices for the constitutional bench depending on their capacity to fairly handle challenging problems.
One should rule with moral integrity
The fact that Justice Umar Sial turned down to serve on the bench reminds us especially of the need of openness and merit-based respect in court nominations. His decision is a cry to protect the integrity and independence of the court, so ensuring that Pakistan’s bastion of justice and fairness remains whole.
Moral rejection of Justice Umar Sial to be on the constitutional bench of Sindh High Court reveals problems with court independence, seniority, and executive intervention in Pakistan.
