The country’s top judge hosted some unusual guests at his residence last week, first meeting with executive officials and later conference with the most important opposition party to seek their input into the judicial reform agenda, among other issues – trigger the debate on the role of the judiciary in political affairs and the consequences of such engagements.

In the curious reversal of events, Chief Justice turned for Pakistan Justice Yahya Afridi not only into politically charged waters, but allegedly allegedly advised the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-In-Insaf (PTI) to remain in the system and Shun Boycotts Council coming Like PTI and other opposition parties manage to an anti-government push.

Political experts have described the development as unprecedented and noted that former Chief Justices has also tried to “fix the system” despite being outside their constitutional mandate. They claim that engaging in a selected group of political representatives was a unclear step and questioning whether Chief Justice will now expand the same opportunity to other political parties.

At the first meeting, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had requested CJP for rapid disposal of tax related profits as from January 2025, as many as 33,522 cases worth RS4.7 trillion is currently awaiting nationwide in various courts and courts.

Although the director’s meeting with the supreme judge went smoothly, PTI was somewhat grilled CJP by telling him that it did not recognize the 26th amendment – the actual amendment that paved the way for CJP’s appointment – and urged him to decide the petitions regarding it 26. Amendments first, refrain from ‘forensic gasket’, put his house in order and will not be an accomplice against PTI.

Referring to the recent letters and petitions from the Supreme Court and Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges regarding the 26th change and seniority of the Supreme Court judges as well as the alleged role as spy agencies, the PTI delegation had continued to say it was CJP’s responsibility to fix things in his own backyard.

PTI had also informed CJP in detail about how PTI founder Imran Khan and his wife, Bushra Bibi, were treated unfairly and urged him to secure the rule of law and the constitution in the country instead of allowing the judiciary to become an accomplice against PTI .

“Many earlier CJPs remained under the illusion that they had a much greater role in solving national problems beyond the role assigned to the Constitution,” said the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat), Ahmed Bilal Mehboob.

The Pildat chief claimed that former CJPs had also tried to assume a broader responsibility, but that did not lead to anything meaningful. “CJPS tried to assume the role, but the judges are neither carved for this role nor our constitution defines such a role for judges or CJP,” Mehboob said.

To the questions of how things have played in SC and IHC for the past few weeks, Mehboob said that “it was not a very wise feature for CJP to meet PM and PTI delegation led by the opposition leader,” said “It was unnecessary, Against the past practice and potentially counterproductive.

In addition, he said, “CJP exposed himself unnecessarily to the political tale of PTI.” He further added that it will be difficult for CJP now if other political parties also ask to be heard.

Professor Tahir Naeem Malik of Numl University stated that CJP’s newly assumed role as meeting political parties was unprecedented when no one invited and met political parties to discuss political, judicial and other issues over the past few decades.

“CJP, who steps out of his institutional role and tries to solve political crisis, can be interpreted in different ways, but simple truth makes sense: It is not his job to meet a select few political parties, assure them to resolve their complaints and Then later decide their cases, “said Professor Malik.