The Supreme Court clerkship programme is announced annually, and provides recent law graduates with an opportunity to assist Supreme Court judges for a period of one year.
However, I was taken aback to learn that recently eight of the 12 law clerks from the 2023-24 batch have been granted extensions. This raises several critical questions about the extension policy, if such a policy exists.
Moreover, the rationale behind the move to extend the terms of law clerks is unclear, especially given that this position is intended for fresh graduates. This extension undermines the opportunities available to new applicants for the clerkship programme this year.
The decision to extend the terms of eight clerks suggests potential weaknesses in the meritocratic aspects of the selection process.
In the light of these concerns, the extension policy for law clerks must be reconsidered. If the committee concerned supports the extension policy, it should be explicitly mentioned in the programme’s core document. It is essential to inform the general public about the criteria used for granting extensions to the law clerks from the previous year.
Undoubtedly, these steps will promote greater accountability, transparency as well as meritocracy within the entire clerkship programme, aligning it more closely with all its intended objectives.
PESHAWAR
