ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Saturday, in a majority decision, sought comments from an Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge on a complaint of misconduct against him.
The council – a constitutional forum that can hold superior court judges accountable – also approved proposed changes to the code of conduct for judges – a move many believe is aimed at silencing outspoken members of the judiciary.
According to a press release, a five-member SJC headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi examined 67 complaints filed against judges of the high court under Article 209 of the Constitution.
Of these, 65 complaints were filed unanimously, one complaint was postponed and one approved for further processing by majority decision.
Regarding complaints against judges of the IHC, the council was reconstituted under Article 209(3)(b) of the Constitution with the inclusion of Peshawar High Court Chief Justice SM Attique Shah.
IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, who was part of the SJC on Saturday, recused himself from attending the meeting “in view of certain matters on the agenda”.
The reconstituted council dealt with seven complaints, five of which were unanimously decided to be filed, while two were ordered to proceed further by majority decision.
The majority SJC sought comments from Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan of the IHC on a complaint of misconduct. He was also warned about another complaint.
Sources told The Express Pakinomist that the council postponed the case of IHC judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, who is accused of having a dubious LLB degree, for the time being. A member of the SJC, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, dismissed the complaint against Justice Jahangiri.
After decisions regarding the current 74 complaints, a total of 87 cases are still pending for initial processing. The SJC has dealt with 155 complaints since October 2024.
Changes to the referees’ code of conduct
The council approved by majority changes to the code of conduct for judges at the superior courts. Reports suggest that Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar dissented from the majority decision.
The proposed amendments were thoroughly discussed and, with some changes, approved by a majority. The council ordered that the revised code be published in the official gazette, circulated to all judges in the superior courts and published on the Supreme Court’s website.
Pursuant to the Council’s decision on 12 July 2025, the Chief Justice of Pakistan proposed amendments to the Code of Conduct for Judges of the Supreme Court and Supreme Court. After discussion, the amended version was approved by majority vote.
According to the amended Article V of the Code, a judge may not engage in any public controversy – by way of speech, writing, debate or comment – in any forum, and especially not on political issues, even if such issues involve a question of law.
“He must not interact with the media, especially on topics that may provoke public debate or adversely affect institutional collegiality and discipline.
“However, where an allegation against a judge is made public, he may refer the matter in writing to a committee consisting of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and four senior judges of the Supreme Court, through the Registrar, for an appropriate institutional response.
“He shall not publicly discuss any judicial or administrative matter or disclose any communication relating to his personal or official affairs.”
Another amendment provides that superior court judges must refrain from presiding over or participating in social, cultural, political or diplomatic functions. A new Article 13 of the Code states that soliciting invitations from foreign or international agencies to attend conferences or meetings will be considered a misdemeanor.
If a judge receives such an invitation in person, he shall request the inviter to send it through the Chief Justice concerned. “A superior court judge may not accept a dinner or reception given in his honor by an individual member of the bar.”
The amended code also emphasizes that in the performance of his duties, a judge must be guided solely by merit and remain independent and firm against internal or external influence.
“If there are no legal powers to counter such influence, the judge must seek an institutional response within the legal domain.
“He shall immediately inform in writing the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the four Chief Justices of the Supreme Court through the Registrar.
“In the case of a High Court, the Chief Justice shall refer the matter to a committee of three members within two days of receiving the report. The committee shall decide the matter within a fortnight.
“If referred for judicial action, it should be decided as early as possible in accordance with the principles of due process and fair trial. If the Chief Justice or the Committee fails to act within the prescribed time frame, the CJP and the four Chief Justices shall take up the matter.”
Legal opinions
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqi said the new Article V was nothing short of gagging judges by destroying freedom of expression. “How can such judges ever protect citizens’ free speech?” he asked.
Siddiqi further stated that the 26th Amendment, the furlough policy and the new Article V all serve a similar purpose – “to control and silence independent judges.”
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii described the changes as “little more than a brazen attempt to silence the few voices on the bench who speak against the current status quo.”
Former Additional Attorney General Waqar Rana noted that all civilized countries and their constitutions recognize the freedom of expression of judges and their non-judicial activities.
“The only limitation is that such non-judicial activities must not interfere with their constitutional duties. Our own constitution recognizes an extra-judicial role for the Chief Justice of Pakistan, such as appointing an arbitrator in disputes between the federal and provincial governments.”
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan said the proposed rules seek to deliberately exclude judges from their bar, from their community, from revealing any thought or inquiry in general.
“This will have the effect of penalizing judges from even the most innocent participation in public life, benefiting only the mean who have nothing to contribute in the first place. These rules dovetail well with the shrinking independence of the judiciary,” he said.
