The 26th constitutional amendment and the subsequently made Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) Rules 2024 have revamped the system of appointment of judges including the chief justices of the higher judiciary – Supreme Court of Pakistan, the five high courts and the Federal Shariat Court. Whereas the twenty-sixth amendment has increased the role of Parliament and the legal fraternity in the appointment process, the JCP Rules have made the system more transparent, objective, quantifiable and responsible. Historically the government had deciding power in the appointment of judges of the high courts and the Supreme Court including their chief justices. Under the constitution, the President needed to consult the chief justice of the Supreme Court for the appointment of judges of that court and besides him the governor of the respective province and chief justice of the respective high court while appointing the judges of a high court, but generally it is just a formality and government generally appointed persons of its own choice as judges in the higher judiciary. The practice of appointment of Chief Justice of Supreme Court -Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) and Chief Justices of High Courts was even worse. Practically there was no system of seniority in these appointments. The government would often overlook the senior judges while appointing the chief justices both at the Supreme Court as well as the high courts. It was also quite normal to keep the post of chief justice of a high court vacant and carry on with an acting chief justice. Many times chief justices of high courts were transferred as ad hoc judges of the Supreme Court. (the judge who refused such transfer was considered retired). Acting chief justices were appointed in their place to manipulate the administrative and judicial decision-making in the high court concerned. This system of executive supremacy in judicial appointments and executive interference in judicial matters was first called out and curtailed in 1996 by CJP Justice Sajjad Ali Shah who ironically was himself appointed Chief Justice Supreme Court by overlooking two senior judges. The oath primarily requires judges to be impartial and honest and deliver justice in accordance with the law and constitution without any fear or favour. He, in the Al-Jihad trust case (PLD 1996 SC 324) held that word consultation mentioned in articles 175 and 193 of the constitution visa vis appointment of judges of the Supreme Court and high courts respectively has to be “effective, meaningful, purposive, and consensus-oriented leaving no room for complaints of arbitrariness or unfair play”. The judgment noted that the opinion of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the Chief Justice of a high court about the fitness and suitability of a nominee for judgeship is entitled to be accepted in the absence of sound reasons to be recorded by the President. It added that acting chief justices were not consultees as envisaged in articles 175 and 193 of the constitution and any appointment in the high courts made after consulting acting chief justices was void ab initio. Thus dozens of judges appointed during 1993-6 were removed with a single stroke of pen without giving any trouble to article 209 of the constitution which governs the process of removal of judges on different grounds. The decision shifted the pendulum of powers of appointment of judges in the higher judiciary in favour of the chief justice of Pakistan. During the 18th amendment to the constitution, an effort was made to wrest back this power from the Chief Justice of Pakistan but mistrust between major political parties and the ruling PPP’s bad relations with the establishment allowed strong and united Supreme Court under then Chief Justice Iftikhar Choudhry to forced Parliament to withdraw most of these changes. The subsequent 19th amendment ‘passed at gunpoint’, as most commentators say, gave CJP a monopoly in judicial appointments. It is pertinent to mention that Iftikhar Choudry already removed all judges appointed in the high courts during his suspension through the famous PCO case. The fact that the 18th Amendment act provided that the “President shall appoint the senior most judge of Supreme Court as Chief Justice of Pakistan” without providing a similar provision vis-à-vis the high court allowed the chief justices to manipulate the elevation process from high courts to the supreme court in such a manner to ensure that one of his favourite will be at the helm in a long time to come. While in the 18th Amendment, parliament tried to create a balance between the parliament/executive and the Supreme Court the superimposed 19th Amendment undid all this by making changes in the composition of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. In the commission, the CJP and other judges got an overwhelming majority and the Parliamentary Committee established to conform the ‘recommendations of the JCP’ was turned into a rubber stamp. Subsequently, JCP Rules 2010 further consolidated the powers of the Chief Justice of Pakistan vis a vis judicial appointment and elevations. Under the rules he was the sole authority to meetings of JCP, to initiate names whether it was for elevation of judges to the Supreme Court or appointment of chief justices of high courts, and had deciding power as for new appointments at the high courts were concerned. It was only during fag end of the tenure of Chief Justice Bandial that due to differences among the senior judges of the Supreme Court, there was some resistance to an elevation of the names proposed by CJP, otherwise, both the Judicial Commission as well as the Parliamentary Committee played the role rubber stamp only. The twenty-sixth constitutional amendment and the subsequent JCP rules 2024 have made substantial and consequential changes in the whole process which will have a long-term impact on both the working of the judiciary and its relationship with the executive. The qualification and system of appointment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan has been changed. The appointment of the senior judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has been done away with. Now a twelve-member Special Parliamentary Committee consisting of eight members from the National Assembly and four from the Senate drawn according to the proportionate strength of different political parties in each house will choose with a two-third majority any of the three senior-most judges of the Supreme Court as next CJP. Tenure of CJP has been set at a maximum of three years if he/she does not attain the age of superannuation before that. The Parliamentary Committee as existed under the 18th and 19th amendments to vet the decisions of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan has been abolished and the JCP, with a changed composition, has been given final authority in the selection of judges of the Supreme Court, as well as judges and chief justices of the Federal Shariat Court and the five high courts. The writer is a freelance columnist.