KARACHI: A division bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) on Monday issued a notice to the deputy attorney general in a petition challenging the rules for appointing judges in the superior courts. The petition was filed by lawyer Mohsin Ali, through his counsel Ebrahim Saifuddin, before a regular bench of the SHC, seeking to declare Rule 9(1), related to nominations for appointment, and Rule 10 (5), which states that the Secretariat shall not include the names of the members proposing the nominations in the two consolidated lists of nominees for the commission’s consideration, under the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (Appointment of Judges) Rules, 2024, as unconstitutional. After the preliminary hearing, the division bench headed by Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput put the deputy attorney general on notice for Jan 22. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that on Dec 12, 2024, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) approved the rules in a meeting. He stated that Rule 9 (1) allowed any member of the JCP to nominate a candidate for appointment as a judge in the superior courts. Judges’ nominations must come only from judicial members of JCP to protect public trust in judiciary, bench told Referring to the composition of the JCP before and after the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, the counsel argued that the executive, having a majority, could vote for its ‘favoured nominee’ and appoint them as judges of the superior courts. Regarding the concealment of the names of members who make nominations under Rule 10 (5), the counsel argued that it was an attempt to hide from the public at large whether a nominee was put forward by the executive or a judicial member. “The mode and manner for the appointment of judges must be transparent, which is an established principle,” the petitioner stated. The counsel asked the court to declare Rule 9 (1) and Rule 10 (5) of the judges’ appointment rules as ultra vires, arbitrary and unconstitutional on the grounds that granting the executive the authority to make nominations in the JCP could lead to the appointment of individuals who shared allegedly close ties with the executive and were more inclined to cooperate with them. The counsel pointed out that nominations must come exclusively from the JCP’s judicial members to protect public trust and confidence in the judiciary.