By Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s judiciary is grappling with internal divisions over the handling of legal challenges to a contentious constitutional amendment, with Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi overriding a committee decision to refer the cases to the full Supreme Court hearing, according to minutes of internal communications released on the court’s website.
The disagreement centres on whether the petitions, filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, should be heard by the full Supreme Court or a specialised Constitutional Bench, as mandated by the 26th Amendment.
The minutes, covering meetings between October 31, 2024, and May 29, 2025, reveal tensions among senior judges over judicial procedures and constitutional interpretation. On October 31, 2024, a committee formed under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, convened by senior puisne judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, resolved by majority to place the petitions before the full court for a hearing on November 4, 2024.
The meeting, held in Justice Akhtar’s chamber, saw the two judges advocate for a full court to ensure broader judicial consensus. However, CJP Afridi, who chairs the committee, rejected the proposal, citing Article 191A of the Constitution, introduced through the 26th Amendment.
Afridi argued against the full court option, saying it would “dampen the much-needed spirit of collegiality among judges, besides exposing the court to public comment, as in the recent past.”
In his written response, Afridi argued that only the Constitutional Bench, not the full court, is authorised to hear such petitions and further stated that convening the committee under the Practice and Procedure Act to form benches or opting for a full court hearing would violate constitutional provisions.
The Chief Justice disclosed that he consulted all 13 Supreme Court judges, with nine supporting his view that the petitions should be heard by the Constitutional Bench. Only Justices Shah and Akhtar favoured the full court option. “I did not find it appropriate to call for a full court hearing.”
Two sealed letters from the dissenting judges were sent to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) secretary for safekeeping until the JCP’s November 5, 2024, meeting.
During a JCP meeting on December 6, 2024, Justice Shah reiterated his proposal for a full court hearing, but Afridi maintained that the JCP lacked the authority to deliberate on the 26th Amendment. Most JCP members backed the Chief Justice’s stance that only the Constitutional Bench Committee, as per Article 191A(3a), could hear such cases.
In separate minutes dated May 20, 2025, Justice Shah stressed the importance of “meaningful consultation” under the Practice and Procedure Act, arguing that delegating powers to the Supreme Court’s registrar was not permissible.
He proposed that the next senior judge should attend committee meetings in the absence of a member, but only if the CJP was unavailable. The committee agreed with Shah’s view on non-delegation but rejected his other suggestions, directing the registrar to revise and resubmit a draft proposal.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Thursday formally published the Supreme Court Rules 2025, replacing the outdated 1980 rules to align court procedures with modern legal and technological developments. A committee comprising Justices Shahid Waheed, Irfan Saadat Khan, Naeem Akhter Afghan, and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi drafted the new rules after consultations with the Pakistan Bar Council, the Supreme Court Bar Association, and other bar associations.
The 2025 rules, approved after detailed deliberation by the full court, consist of seven parts, 38 orders, and six schedules, with 280 provisions amended, 60 new provisions added, and five outdated ones removed. Key changes include mandatory electronic filing of petitions and paper books, digital issuance of notices and orders, and provisions for video-link hearings and affidavits. Judicial documents sent by post will no longer be accepted.
The rules also update court fees for the first time in decades, with exemptions for habeas corpus and Article 184(3) petitions. Counsel fees have been increased, and the registrar may appoint advocates at state expense in death penalty cases. Intra-Court Appeals are introduced for orders under Article 184(3) and contempt proceedings, with one review petition allowed per judgement and penalties for frivolous reviews.
The registrar’s powers have been expanded to oversee staff, recall ex parte orders, and enforce procedural compliance, with procedural failures no longer invalidating proceedings. Appeals from interlocutory orders must now be heard by a bench of at least two judges. The public disclosure of the minutes underscores ongoing differences among Pakistan’s top judges over the interpretation of the 26th Amendment and the handling of constitutional petitions, raising questions about judicial unity and procedural clarity in the country’s apex court.
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
