In acceding to the plea of the petitioners against the rejection of four judges of the Lahore High Court and two judges of the Sindh High Court for a one-year extension by the Parliamentary Committee (PC), the Supreme Court (SC) has opened up a new controversy. It seems that the issue that had apparently been settled by parliament through no less than a constitutional amendment is still alive and kicking. The whole idea of devising this mechanism was that no one person or institution should have exclusive purview in the appointment of judges. The names of judges recommended for appointment by the Judicial Commission (JC) were to be reviewed by a bipartisan PC, removing the past role of the president in such appointments. After the SC expressed reservations on certain aspects of the appointments procedure under the 18th Amendment, the Parliamentary Committee for Constitutional Reforms (PCCR) sat down and reviewed Article 175-A, removed anomalies and accommodated the SC’s objections. The number of serving judges in the JC was increased and the PC was bound to giving its reasons for rejecting the JC’s recommendations in writing. That arrangement is now being questioned again. One of the petitioners in the present case argued that the PC was not authorised to review the qualifications or ability of any judge. The 19th Amendment had made an exception to Article 68 of the constitution — which bars parliament from discussing the conduct of judges — for the purpose of judges’ appointment. It had, however, agreed to the SC’s suggestion that the proceedings of the PC would be held in camera. The argument of the petitioners’ counsel completely negates parliament’s role and function, which had struck a fine balance between the powers of the judiciary and parliament through the 19th Amendment. It is therefore a setback to that consensus that the court accepted the petitioners’ position and directed the government to appoint the judges denied extension by the PC. While it is the prerogative of the SC to interpret the constitution, such interpretation can become a cause of concern when it indirectly questions the law-making function of parliament and tries to undermine its powers. The PC had based its decision of rejection on the review of their performance by the chief justices of their respective high courts. Commenting on this development, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Asma Jahangir said, “Individuals who desperately seek judicial appointments, despite being evaluated as substandard, will only degrade the integrity of the judicial institution. It is not anyone’s right to be a judge and if the PC is simply expected to bow to every decision of the JC, then it has no role at all and the constitution may as well simply give a few judges of the SC all powers to appoint anyone they please, whether competent or not.” This decision would inevitably raise tensions between the judiciary and parliament and by implication the executive. The constitutional provisions are so clear that these petitions should not have been admitted in the first place. One cannot but agree with Asma Jahangir when she says that the decision of the SC “has struck down the spirit of the 19th Amendment which accommodated the concerns of the Supreme Court, but did not agree to bring the decisions of the PC under judicial scrutiny.”*