ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday questioned whether a constitutional petition could be maintained against President Asif Ali Zardari over the delay in approving the appointment of high court judges, while indicating that the federal government should first clarify the status of the long-pending summary.

The petition, filed by Advocate Luqman Zafar Chaudhry through counsel Zahid Asif Chaudhry, challenges the president’s continued inaction on recommendations forwarded by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) for appointments to the Islamabad, Lahore, Sindh and Balochistan high courts.

According to the petition, the summary was sent to the president by the prime minister but has neither been approved nor returned with objections. The petitioner argued that the Constitution does not allow indefinite inaction and that the delay has worsened the shortage of judges in the superior judiciary.

During the hearing, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir repeatedly questioned whether the court could issue a constitutional writ against the president and asked the petitioner’s counsel to cite any legal precedent where a court directed the head of state to perform a constitutional duty.

Counsel Zahid Asif Chaudhry told the court that reports suggested the government might issue the appointments notification within the next 48 hours. He urged the bench to seek details from the federal government regarding the status of the summary before deciding the case.

Saudi Visit Takes Centre Stage as PM Shehbaz, Asim Munir Lead High-Level Delegation

“At least ask the government what the status of the summary is,” counsel argued.

Justice Tahir, however, maintained that the court first needed to determine whether such a petition was legally maintainable, stressing the need for judicial precedent involving directions issued to the president.

The court also sought clarification on which authority was responsible for issuing the appointments notification. Counsel submitted that the Ministry of Law normally issues the notification after presidential approval but argued that if the president failed to act within a reasonable time, the competent authority should proceed with the notification.

The bench observed that the legal precedent cited by the petitioner related to different circumstances and did not directly address the issue before the court.

After hearing arguments, the IHC reserved its verdict on the maintainability of the petition.

The dispute comes amid a wider constitutional debate over the president’s role in judicial appointments. While the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the president cannot reject nominations recommended by the Judicial Commission, Article 175A(8) of the Constitution does not specify a timeframe for approving or returning such recommendations.

The Judicial Commission, during meetings held on July 20 and 21, 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. It also recommended confirming four additional judges of the Peshawar High Court and extending the tenure of Sindh High Court Additional Judge Justice Khalid Hussain Shahani by six months.

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

Government officials have privately linked the delay to differences within the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) over the Judicial Commission’s recommendations, particularly concerning appointments to the Sindh High Court. Legal experts believe the constitutional question surrounding the president’s role may ultimately require further judicial interpretation.