Consultative process

2025 CLC 56 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.140(3)Election Tribunal, appointment ofConsultative processScope

Petitioner / candidate was aggrieved of refusal of Election Commission to appoint Judges of High Court so nominated by Chief Justice of High Court to act as Election Tribunals

Validity

Provision of S. 140(3) of Elections Act, 2017 refers to a stage prior to appointment of Election Tribunals by Election Commission

Such stage contemplates appointment of a sitting Judge as Election Tribunal in consultation with Chief Justice of High Court concerned

Consultative process has to precede appointment to be made by Election Commission

Election Commission is not tasked with determining their fitness and suitability and has no power at all to pick and choose Judges out of a panel which suits its cause

Such act of Election Commission is not only offensive but strikes at the concept of judicial integrity and comity

In matters of appointment of Election Tribunals under S. 140 of Elections Act, 2017 the opinion of Chief Justice of a High Court had pre-eminence over a contrary view of Election Commission, which was bound to appoint Judges nominated by the Chief Justice

High Court set aside notification issued by Election Commission assigning areas of jurisdiction to Election Tribunals

Territorial jurisdiction and areas to be assigned was exclusive domain of Chief Justice of a High Court

High Court declared letter issued by Election Commission requiring Chief Justice of High Court to provide panel of Judges to Election Commission for their appointment as Election Tribunals, as unlawful and beyond its powers

High Court also set-aside notification issued by Election Commission assigning territorial jurisdictions of Election Tribunals

Election Commission was under obligation to appoint as Election Tribunals all Judges of High Court who were nominated by Chief Justice unless the Chief Justice would withdraw any name or substitute it

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2016 CLC 801 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 43Appointment of Judges of the High CourtConsultative processValidityMethods and modes of Constitution in different countries highlighted

High Court observed that under the Constitutions of different countries, appointment of the Judges of the superior judiciary are made either by the Parliament or by any other political institution, but dignity and integrity of the Judges prevails in those societies, and in case of some exception, the proceedings are initiated at proper forums.

2016 CLC 801 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Ss. 44 & 43(2-A)Notification No. LD/AD/372-412/2011 dated 24.02.2011Writ petitionMaintainabilityAppointment of Judges of the High CourtConsultative processValidityMala fide, principle ofApplicability and scope

Fact of being an associate of some of the removed judges might hardly be a ground to term present petition prima facie a mala fide action

Petitioners, being members of the Bar, were responsible members of legal fraternity, and had categorically stated that present petition had been instituted for the supremacy of law

Petitioners/lawyers had been appearing before the Judges (respondents), who were holding the posts for a long time and there was no complaint against them, therefore, the petitioners might not be absolved from establishing prima facie bona fides of the petition, which had been filed after a long period of silence

High Court could not ignore the application of the principle of mala fide, if the prevailing circumstances were such, which militate against the bona fides of the petitioners

High Court observed that mala fide or motive of the appointing authority in making the appointment of a particular person were irrelevant in considering the question of issuing writ of quo-warranto

Petitioners had failed to establish prima facie their bona fides.