Four Supreme Court judges are now publicly lamenting over non-participation in the affairs of superior judiciary. The honourable judges have, in a letter to the Chief Justice, brought to the fore serious reservations regarding the work format, and firmly believe that the full court proceedings on the eve of judicial new year was a mere ‘stamp of approval’ and an eyewash to arbitrary measures taken in individual capacity of the top judge. Thus, they believe, the same are in violation of Article 191 that calls for powers to be exercised collectivity by the court as an institution.
The letter, second in line in days after a similar one from puisne judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah who flagged six detrimental aspects that have undermined the independence of the top court under Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, questioned the fairness of the CJ as the “present Supreme Court rules were never placed before, nor approved by, the full court.” It went on to state that the CJ had, through a letter on August 12, 2025, informed the judges that the rules had already been approved through circulation and duly notified in the Gazette on August 9, 2025. The contention of the four dissenting judges, who also boycotted the proceedings, is: what was then the need for convening the full court meeting on Monday?
The rift among the Brother Judges is now for all to see, and the reference on Monday failed to bridge that gap. The four judges were categorical in stating that the rules in vogue “suffer from both substantive and procedural illegality”; and the premise that they were processed and formulated through “circulation” is devoid of logic and precedents. It is apt to mention that the Practice and Procedure Act, 2023 — under which three senior-most judges are supposed to deliberate and decide on formation of benches — has also turned infructuous, as it is not being applied in its organic form.
The points raised in the letters should be taken in good faith, as the aim and intention of ‘thinking’ judges is to enhance transparency and efficiency in judicial proceedings. The submission from CJ that rules framed are a “living document” must stand the litmus test of unanimity.
