22A: LAWASIA questions compostion of five-judge bench

LAWASIA, the Law Association for Asia and the Pacific, has expressed concern over the composition of a five-judge bench in court proceedings of significant constitutional importance. The association emphasizes the need for transparency, consultation, and stakeholder engagement in such matters to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the Court.

LAWASIA notes that the proposed 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which extends the retirement ages of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal judges, has been challenged due to its potential impact on judicial independence. The Commonwealth Lawyers Association, the International Association of Judges, and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers have also expressed concerns.

LAWASIA raises specific issues with the recusal of the Chief Justice and the decision to hear the petitions by a full court instead of a smaller bench. This decision was made without providing reasons, leading to criticism of procedural fairness. The association also highlights that the Chief Justice would be the first judge to benefit from the amendment, raising questions about potential bias.

Furthermore, LAWASIA expresses disappointment that Petitioners were denied an opportunity to make oral submissions following oral arguments, despite being allowed to submit written replies. This lack of a meaningful chance to respond is deemed an essential aspect of procedural fairness. LAWASIA stresses that judicial independence extends beyond the final outcome of a case; it encompasses the integrity of the entire judicial process.

In cases of constitutional amendments directly affecting judges' tenures, it is crucial to uphold procedural fairness, impartiality, and transparency to preserve public confidence in the judiciary.