The conflict between the Supreme Court judges has been intensified as four justice that opposed the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court’s judges has been removed from the main administrative committees under the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridis restructuring plan.

CJP Afridi has reconstituted several committees and replaced senior judges with junior. Those who are excluded from critical roles include justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice ATHER MINALLAH and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi.

Reports show that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has been removed from his advisory role at the Federal Judicial Academy (FJA), a position he had held for the past year.

Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ayesha Malik have been excluded from Law Clerkship Program Committee, which will now be led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb as the second member.

Similarly, Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi has been removed from the SC Building Committee, while justice at Har Minallah has lost his attitude to the Supreme Court’s archive and museum committee.

In addition, justice Irfan Saadat Khan is not included in any of the newly reconstituted committees.

It was widely expected that the conflict between the Supreme Court’s judges would fall during Chief Justice Afridi’s term of office, but it did not happen.

Legal experts believe that if CJP Afridi constituted a full court to hear petitions against the 26th constitutional change, the situation could have played differently.

Two judges, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, who formed the majority of the relevant committee, had ordered the constitution of a full court to hear the petitions in the first week of November. Instead of constructing the case, however, CJP Afridi convened a meeting of the Legal Commission in Pakistan (JCP) to choose judges for the constitutional bench.

The government succeeded in appointing a majority of its preferred judges to the constitutional bench, which subsequently delayed to hear the petitions against the amendment. Instead of awaiting the final decision on the 26th amendment, CJP Afridi continued with JCP meetings to consider the Supreme Court’s court appointments.

During his first 100 days, 36 judges were appointed high courts, and seven were raised to the point.

During his first 100 days in office, 36 judges were appointed to the high courts and seven were raised to the Supreme Court. However, CJP Afridi recognized the government’s influence in the appointment process and raised serious concerns about the integrity and competence of several newly appointed judges.

Justice Shah had called on JCP to establish rules to nominate judges for the constitutional bench, but his proposal was not entertained.

When a three -members bench was led by Justice Shah, questioning jurisdiction for a regular bench in a tax case, the case was withdrawn from his bench by a committee led by Justice Afridi.

The move has given rise to an ongoing debate on whether the committee had the authority to override a court decision.

Tensions escalated further as members of the constitutional bench expressed visible frustration over the ordinary bench, led by Justice Shah, to have determined that four senior SC judges could face contempt.

When CJP Afridi convened a JCP meeting to consider eight new Supreme Court’s appointments, opposite Four SC -judges the move and insisted that the pending application for a full hearing on the 26th amendment should be decided first.

Defending the new agreements noted CJP Afridi that “business judges” did not meet their responsibilities – a pointed reference to justice Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar.

On February 10, both the Justice Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar JCP resided on SC Agreements. Subsequently, they were removed from the main administrative committees.

Some lawyers consider the resistance as a clash between recipients and concerned judges in the 26th amendment.