Islamabad:
Four Supreme Court Commissions have raised questions about the legality of the Supreme Court rules 2025, which was adopted last month.
Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Ayesha Malik and At Har Minallah opposed that the rules were introduced without consideration and approval of the full court – a constitutional requirement.
“The current rules of the Supreme Court were never before or approved by the full court. This omission is not only procedural but goes to the legality of the very.
“Rules that are framed without considering and approval of the full court are therefore missing the court’s imprimature and cannot acquire binding legal status,” wrote the four judges in a four-page letter addressed to Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi and other SC judges.
The four judges also stepped down from attending the full hearing held on Monday. It is learned that during the meeting no objections were made to the objections raised. The meeting had been called to consider changes to the Supreme Court rules 2025.
The judges questioned why the full court was bypassed in approval of the rules, but then later called in to consider their change.
“By seeking its views only after notifying the rules, the exercise reduces the full court to a cosmetic role, a forum to ratify what has already been done instead of performing its true constitutional function under Article 191. In reality, the meeting is used to give a veneer of legitimacy to an otherwise invaluable process,” stated.
The judges opposed further approval method.
“The rules were treated through circulation. Circulation is an administrative convenience to deal with routine or less procedural affairs; it is not and cannot be the vehicle to determine the constitutional architecture of the governance of this court.
“Unless the full court itself had explicitly decided to adopt circulation for this purpose, Chief Justice alone could not unilaterally resort to it. The current rules therefore suffer from both material and procedural illegality.”
They also pointed out that the agenda itself caused confusion.
“It invokes Rule 1, par.
The judges called the call of a full court meeting at this time “amazing” and “false.”
“On August 9, 2025, the rules were already notified as’ approved.
“This sequence acknowledges tacitly that the full court is the correct forum for such consideration, but only after the fait -achieving unilateral approval. This is equivalent to putting the wagon before the horse – first declaring the rules valid and then calling the full court just to consider considering changes in patchwork.”
The letter concludes that the only constitutionally consistent and institutionally honest course would be to place the rules in their entirety for the full court, allow real discussion and seek formal approval.
The judges requested that their objection be registered in the Protocol and that the Protocol be published, saying that people have the right to know how such rules were adopted without discussion.
Full hearing
Later, a full court meeting was held by all judges except the four disagrees.
According to a Supreme Court statement, after “thorough considerations and a hectic debate,” the full court unanimously agreed that the Supreme Court Rules 2025 is a “living document” that will remain open to changes to meet legal and social developments. It was also decided that all proposals received will be examined by the committee, which will then make recommendations to the full court.
The court also decided that, in accordance with the repealed rules in 1980, fees and securities will continue to apply in the 2025 rules.
Chief Justice called the development “a significant milestone” that reflects the obligation of the judiciary to strengthen institutional framework.
Attorneys respond
Legal experts say the legitimacy of the new rules is under serious question. When he spoke with Express Pakinomist on condition of anonymity, a former legal lawyer for Pakistan said there was “a lot of power” in the objections that the four judges raised.
“It is very strange that the rules that change after 45 years and are intended to manage the Supreme Court procedure are adopted in such a relaxed way.
“To tackle assumed anomalies, a full hearing with such a fanfare was even called.
He added that the rules should have been framed through a proper sub -committee of the full court, circulated publicly for feedback and then formally approved by the full court.
“The method of circulation is used for organs that often meet and where something urgent can’t wait for the next meeting. To use it for framing rules after 45 years, by a full court that rarely meets is a very bad precedent,” he said.
