High Court to hear challenge on unappealable judicial dismissals
In raising procedural points, the prosecution argued that the case should not be heard by judges, claiming that it presents a conflict of interest.
High Court on Sunday made a ruling, agreeing to hear a constitutional case challenging a key provision of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Act, which states that decisions made by the JSC on the dismissal of judges cannot be appealed.
The case was initially filed by Judicial District Magistrate Ali Naseer, who contends that the provision in the JSC Act is unconstitutional.
He argues that denying judges the right to appeal their dismissals violates their constitutional rights.
In raising procedural points, the prosecution argued that the case should not be heard by judges, claiming that it presents a conflict of interest. Their position is based on the notion that judges have a vested interest in the outcome of this case since it pertains to their ability to be dismissed or retain their positions.
The prosecution also pointed out that the constitution does not grant a single body the sole authority to appoint or dismiss individuals from such critical positions without further review.
In its ruling, the High Court addressed the prosecution’s concerns and ruled that the case indeed raises a constitutional question. The Court stated that the issue at hand was not simply about judicial self-interest but involved broader questions about the judiciary's independence and the fairness of the process of judicial dismissals.
The key issue the court will address is whether the inability to appeal decisions about judicial dismissals infringes on a judge's right to seek redress. The High Court also noted that the Judicial Appeals Board, which was established under the JSC Act, is a separate legal entity, but its existence does not preclude the need for judicial oversight of dismissal decisions.
The High Court rejected the claim that judges should recuse themselves from such cases, arguing that if judges did not hear the case, no other institution could be trusted to provide justice in this matter. This implies that the judiciary must take an active role in upholding its own standards of fairness, even when it comes to deciding on its own members.
The case was heard by a five-judge bench, which issued a unanimous decision to proceed with the hearing. The bench consisted of:
1. Fathimath Farheeza (Chairperson)
2. Hussain Shaheed (Chief Justice of the High Court)
3. Mohamed Faisal
4. Hussain Mazeed
5. Huzaifa Mohamed
The judges agreed that the case raised fundamental constitutional issues regarding the limits of the JSC’s powers and the protection of judicial independence.
The provision in question was introduced in 2019 when the 19th parliament amended the JSC Act to make the commission’s decisions on the dismissal of judges unappealable.
