President Asif Ali Zardari on Tuesday approved a fresh batch of judicial appointments, ending a weeks-long deadlock over nominations to Pakistan’s high courts that had triggered legal proceedings before the Islamabad High Court.

According to a post shared by the President of Pakistan on X, Zardari approved the appointment of additional judges to the Lahore, Sindh, Islamabad and Balochistan high courts. He also confirmed several additional judges serving in the Lahore and Peshawar high courts.

The president approved 10 additional judges for the Lahore High Court, three for the Sindh High Court, three for the Islamabad High Court and three for the Balochistan High Court.

He also approved the confirmation of four additional judges of the Peshawar High Court and one additional judge of the Lahore High Court. The President’s Office said Zardari had signed all relevant summaries.

The decision came a day after the Islamabad High Court sought written reports from the federal government and the Ministry of Law over the prolonged delay in processing the recommendations.

The IHC was hearing a petition challenging the delay in acting on recommendations made by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan for appointments to the high courts. During Monday’s hearing, the court asked the government to explain when the summaries had reached the president and what action had been taken on them.

The presidential approvals have now brought the immediate dispute over the pending recommendations to an end, although questions surrounding the constitutional framework for such appointments had already generated significant legal and political debate.

The controversy centred on the president’s role under Article 175A of the Constitution. While the Supreme Court had previously held that the president could not reject nominations made by the Judicial Commission, the constitutional provision did not clearly specify a deadline for presidential action on the recommendations.

The issue therefore raised questions about whether the president could delay action indefinitely by neither approving nor returning the recommendations with objections.

The Judicial Commission had approved the latest recommendations during meetings held on July 20 and 21. It recommended three additional judges for the Islamabad High Court, 10 for the Lahore High Court, three for the Sindh High Court and three for the Balochistan High Court.

The commission also recommended confirmation of four additional judges of the Peshawar High Court and a six-month extension for Sindh High Court Additional Judge Justice Khalid Hussain Shahani.

Trump Escalation Threatens Hormuz Talks as Iran Demands End to US Blockade

However, Justice Shahani’s tenure expired on July 28 before the proposed extension could take effect.

The delay had raised the possibility of further judicial intervention, with legal experts warning that the dispute could ultimately require a constitutional interpretation over whether a specific statutory or constitutional deadline should govern presidential action on Judicial Commission recommendations.

The issue also carried political implications. Government officials had privately linked the delay to dissatisfaction within the Pakistan Peoples Party over the outcome of the Judicial Commission’s meetings.

According to officials, PPP-backed nominees for the Sindh High Court failed to secure the commission’s approval. Judicial and executive members of the commission had reportedly agreed that candidates below the age of 45 should not be appointed.

PPP leader and Judicial Commission member Senator Farooq H Naek had proposed 33 candidates for appointments across four high courts. However, commission members reportedly believed the party could have secured approval for other nominees had it not insisted on two preferred candidates for the Sindh High Court.

With President Zardari now having signed the pending summaries, the latest judicial appointment dispute has moved past its immediate impasse. The development also removes a key issue from the proceedings before the Islamabad High Court while leaving broader questions about the constitutional process for future appointments open to debate.