Chief Justices Through History Criteria from Religion, Empires, and Modern States… by Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal

Throughout history, the role of the Chief Justice or head of a judiciary has been central to ensuring justice in societies. Various civilizations, religious traditions, and governments have established distinct criteria for appointing the chief legal authority, reflecting their socio-political values and principles. The journey of selecting Chief Justice spans from ancient times to the modern world, with each system offering unique insights.
Before the advent of Islam, many ancient civilizations, such as the Greeks and Romans, valued intellectual acumen and political allegiance in choosing judicial figures. In ancient Greece, judicial positions were often filled by 500 experienced citizens selected by lottery. The focus was on community participation rather than formal legal qualifications. Similarly, in ancient Rome, consuls or praetors often assumed judicial duties, and their selection relied heavily on political influence and social status rather than legal expertise.
Religious traditions also played a key role in shaping the selection of ChiefJjustice. In Judaism, the Sanhedrin, the highest court, was composed of respected rabbis well-versed in religious law. Leadership in this court was based on a deep knowledge of the Torah and Talmud, prioritizing legal scholarship and moral integrity. Hinduism and Buddhism, both deeply intertwined with governance in ancient India, also had systems where religious texts and the moral standing of individuals were key factors in judicial appointments. In early Christian states, ecclesiastical leaders often doubled as judicial figures, with the criterion being piety and adherence to church doctrine.
Islam introduced a unique judicial system where the Chief Justice, or Qazi-ul-Qazat, was to be selected based on their knowledge of the Quran, Hadith, and Sharia. Caliphs, the political and religious leaders of Islamic empires, appointed judges who were seen as custodians of Islamic law. They were expected to demonstrate not only legal expertise but also high moral character and impartiality. The emphasis was on deep spiritual and legal insight, with scholars such as Imam Abu Hanifa setting the standard for what qualifications a chief judge should hold. In the Islamic caliphates, this principle evolved, but knowledge of Sharia remained central to the selection process.
The evolution of judicial appointments continued during various dynasties and civilizations. In the Ottoman Empire, the Mufti of Istanbul or the Sheikh-ul-Islam served as the highest legal authority, chosen based on their expertise in Islamic jurisprudence. In the Mughal Empire, emperors often appointed their Chief Qazis from among the most learned Islamic scholars in the region, though political loyalty also influenced selections.
Moving to modern times, different countries have adopted unique methods for appointing their Chief Justices. In the United States, the President nominates the Chief Justice, and the Senate confirms the appointment. While legal qualifications are important, the selection process is often influenced by political leanings and the judicial philosophy of the nominee. The United Kingdom, with its long-standing legal tradition, appoints its Chief Justice through an independent commission, which evaluates legal experience, expertise, and the candidate’s ability to lead the judiciary.
After the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendments in Pakistan, the criteria for appointing the Chief Justice of Pakistan has shifted from the traditional seniority-based system to a more merit-oriented framework. Under the new provisions, the appointment of the CJP is no longer automatically determined by seniority within the Supreme Court. Instead, the Special Parliamentary Committee now evaluates candidates based on their judicial competence, legal expertise, leadership abilities, and overall contributions to the judiciary. The aim of the new criteria is to ensure that the selected Chief Justice possesses the necessary vision, administrative skills, and experience to lead the judiciary in addressing modern legal challenges and upholding the principles of justice.
In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court selects its Chief Justice from among its members, with political parties playing a significant role in the appointment process. The French judiciary, while similar in its legal focus, has more government involvement, with the President having significant influence in appointing the Chief Justice. China’s Chief Justice is appointed by the National People’s Congress, reflecting the country’s centralized governance and Communist Party’s control over judicial matters.
In India, the Chief Justice is selected based on seniority, following the “collegium system,” where the current chief and senior justices recommend their successor. Japan, with a mixed judicial system, involves the Emperor in appointing the Chief Justice, although it is largely a ceremonial role, with the real decision made by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Russia’s Chief Justice is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Federation Council, showing a strong executive influence in judicial appointments.
In Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, the criteria for selecting the Chief Justice are grounded in Islamic law. The King appoints the Chief Justice based on recommendations from the council of scholars, with a heavy emphasis on their understanding of Islamic jurisprudence. Qatar follows a similar model, with a combination of Islamic law and state interests guiding judicial appointments. Iran, being a theocratic state, has its chief justice appointed by the Supreme Leader, ensuring alignment with the country’s religious and political ideals.
In Australia, the Chief Justice of the High Court is appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. Legal experience and judicial competence are the primary factors considered. Malaysia and Indonesia, two Muslim-majority nations, incorporate both Islamic principles and modern legal frameworks in appointing their Chief Justices. In both countries, the chief justices are appointed by the head of state based on recommendations from judicial commissions, which consider seniority, legal expertise, and leadership qualities.
In Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Sweden, appointments to the Chief Justice position follow a highly merit-based process, with an emphasis on legal competence, independence, and seniority. Judicial councils or commissions often handle nominations, ensuring transparency and avoiding political interference. These countries value an impartial judiciary and the selection process ensures that the highest legal positions are filled by judges with exemplary legal careers.
In Singapore, the President appoints the Chief Justice on the advice of the Prime Minister, emphasizing a balance of legal experience and political alignment. Singapore’s legal system is known for its efficiency and high regard for the rule of law. The Netherlands and Switzerland both have robust independent judicial appointment processes, focusing on legal qualifications and judicial experience. Both countries emphasize the separation of powers, with minimal executive interference in the judiciary. In Spain and Italy, the process of appointing the Chief Justice is influenced by political factors. The governments in these countries have a significant role in nominations, often balancing between legal competence and political interests.
South Korea’s Chief Justice is appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the National Assembly. This process highlights both the judicial experience and political considerations involved in the selection. In Canada, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister, with judicial experience and seniority playing key roles in the decision. Brazil has a process in which the President of the Supreme Federal Court is elected by its members, generally following seniority.
The criteria for selecting a Chief Justice vary globally but generally emphasize legal expertise, leadership, and sometimes political alignment. In countries with deep religious roots, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, religious qualifications and adherence to the state’s religious interpretation of law are paramount. In secular democracies like the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, legal experience and philosophical alignment with prevailing legal norms are key factors. In communist states such as China and Russia, political loyalty to the ruling party plays a significant role.
The best criterion for appointing a Chief Justice or Qazi remains a balance of legal acumen, moral integrity, and the ability to interpret and apply the law impartially, regardless of political, religious, or personal biases. While each system has its merits, the ultimate goal should always be to uphold justice and the rule of law, ensuring fairness for all.