Bill proposes judicial appointments ahead of SC judge resignations
Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan has submitted a request to the JSC seeking retirement.
Top Stories
-
MP Mauroof released from custody, receiving hospital treatment
-
House floor sinks in Malé during nearby construction work
-
PNF to hold special rally at Artificial Beach on Wednesday
-
MDP MP says Mauroof arrest may breach parliamentary privileges
-
Complaint filed with JSC over judge’s remarks on defence lawyer
An amendment has been proposed to the law to allow the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) to initiate the appointment of a new Supreme Court judge prior to the official resignation or retirement of the sitting judge.
The amendment, submitted by Thinadhoo North MP Saudullah Hilmy on behalf of the government, comes at a time when Chief Justice Ahmed Muthasim Adnan has submitted a request to the JSC seeking retirement. The JSC has yet to decide on the request.
According to the proposed bill, if the JSC agrees to the resignation or retirement of a Supreme Court judge, the commission may begin the process of appointing a replacement before the vacancy formally arises. The appointment process may commence following a formal decision by the JSC in a meeting with its members.
Once such a decision is made, the JSC is required to inform the President within 48 hours. The subsequent appointment of a new judge must follow the existing legal procedures outlined for appointments to the Supreme Court bench.
In a related development, the JSC recently requested the Parliament’s Finance Committee to amend the Judges' Retirement Rules to revise the Chief Justice’s retirement benefits. The request included a transport allowance (covering a driver’s salary and fuel), a monthly living allowance of MVR 70,000, and a proposal to calculate the retirement allowance by including both judicial service and total service to the State.
If approved, Chief Justice Muthasim Adnan’s retirement allowance would increase from MVR 185,100 to MVR 493,600.
The Finance Committee has referred the matter to the Pay Commission. It remains unclear whether a decision has been made by the commission.