Islamabad:

A cold war in the highest judiciary seems to have further elaborated as Senior Puisne-Judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah could not fly to Saudi Arabia to attend two events in arbitration for lack of ex-Pakistan leave.

It is learned that Justice Shah was invited to provide key notes at two events in the arbitration week in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia organized by Al Baraka Forum and Organization of Islamic Cooperation Arbitration Center (OIC-AC).

During the week, Justice Shah also wanted to perform Umrah before the start of the holy month Ramazan.

Senior Puisne judge had made a request to the Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi about Ex-Pakistan-Leaf well in time, who remained unanswered, and convincing Justice Mansoor to cancel his trip to Saudi Arabia as his magazines could not be sanctioned.

It should be noted that Justice Shah was the only Supreme Court judge from a Muslim country invited to the event sponsored by the Saudis in ‘Arbitration Week’ in Riyadh, which is a high profile event.

Attorneys believe that arbitration is most significant for Pakistan, and justice Shah’s presence in Riyadh would have contributed to building cooperation among the judiciary in the Muslim countries. This could have led to developing a common arbitration center for Muslim countries and an international arbitration center in Pakistan.

They also wonder why the protocol of the committee, which works under Supreme Court Practice and Procedure, Law 2023, is not shared on the SC site. The practice was stopped since the current CJP assumed his office.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah is also a member of three members’ committee. In the past, four judge who opposed the Supreme Court’s judges of the Point Court have been removed from the main administrative committees under CJP Yahya Afridis restructuring plan.

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

Had CJP Afridi put together a full court to hear petitions against the 26th constitutional amendment, the situation could have been different, the legal experts said.

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 constitutional bench has not yet decided petitions against 26. Constitutional amendment.

Then a three-judge bench led by Justice Shah had raised questions whether the ordinary bench could be blocked to judge the questions related to the interpretation of law and constitution by the 26th constitutional amendment. However, the case was withdrawn from the ordinary bench of the committees.

A division bench of the point of point led by justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah found that the members of both committees violated the legal order and withdrew the case from ordinary bench. The bench noted that committee members have committed contempt; Therefore, the full court should be composed to initiate the procedure.

However, the members of the constitutional bench were visibly upset and they set aside the legal order of the ordinary bench. Recently, the federal government also filed the Intra Court appeals to regular bench orders in contempt.

It witnesses that disagreing judges always faced difficult times since ex-CJP Saqib Nisar’s term of office.

Attorneys believe that if the clash between Senior SC judges continues, the overall judiciary will be further weakened and the situation will be favorable to the recipients of the 26th constitutional amendment.