Executive Appointments in Gilgit-Baltistan’s Top Courts
By Muhammad Luqman
The independence of the judiciary is the fundamental principle of a democratic legal system, without executive interference, ensuring that judges can make decisions free from external pressure, including influence from the executive, legislature, or any powerful individual.
It guarantees fair and impartial administration of justice, upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens.
Judicial independence is maintained through safeguards such as security of tenure, financial autonomy, a transparent appointment process, and protection from arbitrary removals. By remaining unbiased and neutral, the judiciary serves as a vital check on other branches of the government and reinforces public confidence in the legal system. The importance of constitutional court judges goes beyond interpreting laws; they act as defenders of democracy and guardians of the Constitution and rule of law.
The Al-Jehad Trust case, commonly known as the Judges Case, was a landmark judgment in which the Supreme Court strongly upheld the principles of an independent judiciary, establishing that the judiciary must be free from executive interference and uphold the rule of law without fear or favor, particularly in the matter of judges’ appointments. The decision reinforced the constitutional balance of power and the integrity of judicial institutions in Pakistan. The judgment also strengthened judicial independence by limiting the executive’s discretionary power in judicial appointments and laid the foundation for future legal frameworks, including the 18th and 19th Constitutional Amendments, which formalized the role of the Judicial Commission and Parliamentary Committee in judges’ appointments.
While coming to the concerned topic at hand, the mechanism for the appointment of judges in the Gilgit-Baltistan higher judiciary is still not clear and falls absolutely under the domain of the executive.
Executive appointments have always been criticized by different segments of society in the history of the democratic legal system. The excessive power of the executive in the appointment of judges may undermine judicial independence, neutrality, and the credibility of the judiciary.
A fair legal system requires checks and balances, involving independent commissions to ensure appointments based on merit, not political, religious, or economic convenience.
In the 2019 Civil Aviation case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed the constitutional status of Gilgit-Baltistan and the jurisdiction of its top courts, particularly concerning the appointments of judges in these courts. In the judgment, the Court emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary for any territory to uphold the rule of law and constitutional supremacy.
The reforms recommended the establishment of a Judicial Commission for appointments, but unfortunately, the judgment has not been implemented in its true spirit. Even the current constitutional bench of the same Court technically neglected its own decisions of the previous bench and ordered the appointment of judges in accordance with the Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018, which is the in-field law of the land.
So, in practice, the appointment process has always faced challenges due to the excessive domain of the executive.
In September 2022, the former Chief Minister of Gilgit-Baltistan filed a petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, arguing that the recent appointments violated the GB Order 2018 and GB Rules of Business 2009. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the Governor of GB had made appointments without consulting the Chief Minister, as required under Article 34 of the same Order 2018. In April 2025, while deciding the petitions, the Supreme Court of Pakistan still did not interpret the word “advice” as embedded under Article 34 of the GB Order. The contention of the petitioner remains unanswered, and the Court lifted the stay order on judicial appointments in GB.
The Court directed the federal government to proceed in accordance with the GB Order 2018.
The appointment process/mechanism remains a subject of legal scrutiny and political debate, highlighting ongoing challenges in the implementation of judicial reforms in Gilgit-Baltistan.
The writer is a Laywer and Human Rights Activist based in GB.
