Islamabad:
Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi has justified his case of not constituting a full court to hear petitions challenged the 26th change last November.
The dispute began on October 31 last year, when Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, who were members of the committee, formally approached a letter to CJP Afridi, calling on him to hold a meeting under the Supreme Court’s practice and procedure law 2023.
The two senior Justices requested the meeting specifically to tackle the petitions, which contest the 26th amendment that involves changes in legal authority and the term of office.
Without a response from CJP, Justices Shah and Akhtar held an independent meeting in Justice Akhtar’s chambers to determine the next steps.
After this private session, the two Justices decided by the majority to set the petitions against 26. Amendments to a full court on November 4 last year.
Despite their decision, no reason was issued.
Since protocols have been issued from the committee meeting on the SC site, CJP Afridis Note is also linked to where he gave justification for not constituting the full court.
CJP said that the constitutional mandate earning jurisdiction to any bench in the Supreme Court to hear a petition under Article 184 of the Constitution but very clear.
CJP had personally sought the statement from all 13 judges at the Supreme Court, where nine favored a constitutional bench over a full court to hear challenges for the amendment.
The disclosure came as part of CJP’s detailed communication that relates to the concerns of Justices Shah and Akhtar about the bench composition for an important constitutional case.
CJP emphasized that the decision reflected the collective preference for the majority of the court and that he had acted in good faith in order to preserve institutional harmony.
Freshly revealed protocols from the judges’ committee meetings covering the period from October 31, 2024, to May 29, 2025, gives a rare glimpse of the inner sanctuary of the pointed court, which just puts a paper track for legal hair cleavage, procedural maneuvering and court diplomacy surrounding one of the most politically charged changes in the country’s new resort.
According to the disclosures, Chief Justice Justice informed Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar from the majority view, warning that the call of a full court could undermine collegiality among judges and expose the right to public criticism as it had happened in the recent past.
The paper track begins with a 31 October 2024 meeting in Justice Munib Akhtar’s Chambers, with Justice Munib Akhtar and Mansoor Ali Shah proposed to list the case before the full court on November 4th.
They acted after the perception that Chief Justice did not call for a judicial committee meeting on the matter.
Later, in a letter 5 November 2024, CJP quoted Afridi Article 191a and Underklause 4 to emphasize that only the judges’ constitutional committees could resolve such cases for consultation and that petitions in accordance with Article 184 (2). 3, must go to a constitutional bench, not a full court.
He revealed that he had private canvassed views of all 13 judges and nine agreed with his attitude, and these findings were shared with the two ‘brother judges’ that had gone in for something else.
Warning that calling a full court in this case could raise the spirit of significant collegiality and invite public criticism as it had happened in the recent past.
Later in the afternoon, CJP’s office received letters from the two judges, sealed and delivered to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) secretary for storage until the Commission’s November 5th meeting.
At the meeting, CJP suggested that the Commission except itself appointed members of the constitutional bench to hear the petitions in line with Article 191a (3) (A).
November 26, 2024: Committee voting
In an ordinary judging committee meeting, chairman of CJP Afridi and participated in justice Shah and Constitutional Bench Leader Aminuddin Khan, justice Shah again proposed to convene a full court.
The majority, Afridi and Khan, decided that CB would hear the case.
January 17, 2025: Tax CONTROVERS
At a subsequent committee meeting, justice Shah was absent, but had previously presented its views on a tax -related constitutional interpretation case, which suggested it could be heard by a regular bench instead of a constitutional bench.
CJP noted that the tax case was originally set to January 27 before an ordinary bench, but a conflicting order planned it for January 16.
At a 2-1 majority, the committee decided to transfer the case to a CB and decided that all cases involving constitutional issues must go to CB unless a regular bench had already placed an order.
24 January 2025: Midnight Roster Dispute
Later, Justice Shah’s letter, also published, describes his objection to being informed at 1 p.m. 21.33 via his secretary that a six-member larger bench, led by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, had been formed to hear an intra-cart appeal.
Shah says he had previously agreed at an informal meeting to a five-member bench of senior judges, excluding any conflicts of interest.
According to Shah, CJP had proposed a four-member bench, but later that night, at. 21.30 via WhatsApp, he was asked to approve a six-member bench. He opposed himself and noted that two of its members – Justice’s Mandokhail and Muhammad Ali Mazhar – were part of the constitutional bench and therefore should not hear the case.
Shah added that the case file was never delivered to him.
May 20, 2025: Delegation of Power’s debate
In a committee meeting with three members, Justice Shah claimed that powers under the Supreme Court (practice and procedure), 2023, could not be delegated to the registrar as the law did not contain such a provision.
He suggested to replace the word “quorum” with “majority” and fill in vacancies with the next most senior judge.
