Islamabad:
In a dazzling letter, Supreme Court Senior Puisne -judomer Syed Mansoor Ali Shah accused Chief Justice for Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi to undermine the Point Court and urged him to answer six questions publicly at the Legal Conference on September 8.
In the seven-page letter dated September 4, Justice Shah said it was the “sustained and complete indifference” of CJP that forced him to write to him when his previous letters and written communication on a number of questions went unanswered and non-disputed.
“Not even did I receive a response neither in writing nor verbally. Such a silence from CJP to the senior-most judge of the court is not only Diskourteous; it undermines the collegiate traditions of this court and violates the institutional courtesy without which a constitutional court cannot function,” he said.
Justice Shah, listing the questions, CJP asked why he had never called the three-member committee formed under the law of practice and procedure, 2023 “to put an end to the one-man show in the formation of benches”.
He said the act required all reasons, questions, petitions, appeals or reviews from them within the domain of the constitutional bench in accordance with Article 191a (2).
“Nevertheless, since your assumption of office in October 2024, is not a single official meeting of the Papa Committee, has been called. Formation of bench and causal lists is issued unilaterally without any committee consideration.
“Companies are circulated for signatures and expect members to support them blindly without discussing the distribution of cases or categorization. As a senior member of the committee, I have had no opportunity to participate in its work as a mandate in the law.”
He said this was a direct violation of the action and raises serious concerns. He asked why junior judges are regularly assigned to three-members benches, while senior judges are limited to two-members benches.
“Why are questions of national importance with far -reaching political consequences not directed before senior benches? The pattern suggests that independent judges are sidelined, not for effectiveness, but for control reasons,” he said.
Justice Shah also asked CJP Afridi why “Historical Revision” by the Supreme Court’s rules, 1980 was approved by circulation rather than after discussion and consideration at a full court meeting.
He said that the SC rules are a constitutional document that controls the functioning of the court, and their first audit in four decades was an event of historical importance that required a full hearing on the administrative side.
“Instead, you chose to approve the draft rules of circulation – a process that fits routine issues, not to reshape the court’s constitutional framework.
“By avoiding consideration, you deprived the right of collective wisdom and diminished legal dialogue. This course reflects a lack of collegiality and a preference for unilateral authority,” he said.
Justice Shah also asked Justice Afridi why the policy had been adopted by releasing disagreements adopted by requesting individual statements from the judges rather than an open consideration at a full hearing.
He said the recent policy of releasing disagreement with the majority decision was approved through a unique process of requesting views from individual judges from the Secretary of Justice.
“There is no legal or institutional basis for individual opinion collection on such critical issues, unless they are specifically approved by the full court, and even then only for questions that are procedural.
“It cannot be treated as a replacement for considering full court, nor answers to this letter used to formulate policy in isolation. A question of case law was reduced to a secret tick-box exercise, and the court was denied wealth by open consideration.
He said that a full court meeting is not just a procedural formality, it is the cornerstone of court collegiality. It allows all judges to come together, to consider, exchange ideas and through open dialogue to persuade or be persuaded.
“In such a forum, a judge can revise or refine their vision after hearing from their colleagues, or can help develop collective wisdom that is far more robust than isolated answers. This essential element of legal democracy is completely lost when sought in writing and in silos.”
Senior Puisne -Judge also asked CJP to tell the legal conference on why a general standing order (SGO) on leave was issued that subordinate judges controlled incompatibly with judicial independence and presidential order of 1997.
He said for the first time in the History of the Court, a GSO dictates that the judges are “full-time” available to the state-one language that is fully to a Constitutional Court.
He said that judges are not regimented officers and that their independence is constitutionally rooted.
“Global in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Germany, France, Singapore and India – Salaries. Wrapping is recognized as a right, not a service.
He said that the newly introduced claim under GSO that a judge at the Supreme Court while on leave or holiday must reveal his residential address and contact information is foreign to the practice of constitutional courts worldwide.
“It borrows from ethos of civil service bureaucracy and tries to transplant it to the judiciary, with deeply corrosive consequences. A judge before this court is not a monitored function of the state, but a constitutional actor whose independence is both decision and personal.
“To force the unveiling of a judge’s private residence is not administration, it is surveillance. It reduces office dignity to a monitored employee and cuts an instrument for control in the procedure.
“No Constitutional Court of Reputation, the US Supreme Court, the British Supreme Court or South Africa’s Constitutional Court has ever introduced such a condition,” he added.
He also asked CJP why the petitions who contested the 26th constitutional amendment have not been listed for the original full court.
He said that the legitimacy of the CJP office and the court hangs in the balance of the pending petitions that challenge the 26th amendment, but the petitions remain unheard of for almost a year, although they relate to the independence of the court.
“They must be heard by the original full court, excluding judges who have been raised after the amendment.
Until then, every initiative of your leadership remains institutionally fragile, for its foundation is constitutionally suspected. Genuine leadership is not in managing compliance, but to ensure that the court rises over suspicion such as the Fearless Guardian of the Constitution, ”he said.
The judge also asked the supreme judge if he cares for independence among judges or enforces compliance with transforming this court into a regimental strength.
“These are institutional issues that strike the heart of independence. When the new judicial year begins, and given the legal conference, you have called to review reforms and put priorities, the nation and the judges in this court look at their Supreme Court not too silence but for clarity.
“I trust that you will use the legal conference as a moment of institutional renewal by answering these questions and confirming the principles of collegiality and constitutional faith,” he added.
