By Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s Supreme Court judges gathered in emergency session last week, confronting the stark new reality created by the 27th Constitutional Amendment, but a dramatic proposal that all of them resign en masse to protest the changes met with only silence and the meeting ended without agreement on any collective action, Dawn newspaper reported on Thursday.
The closed-door full court meeting on Nov. 14, chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi in his chambers, took place one day after the amendment stripped away key powers from the Supreme Court and the day four senior judges were elevated to the newly created Federal Constitutional Court. It was also the first gathering of the remaining justices after the resignations of two prominent members, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Athar Minallah.
The session was convened after Chief Justice Afridi received formal letters from Justice Shah, Justice Minallah and Justice Salahuddin Panwhar requesting an urgent full court reference to discuss how the judiciary should respond to the amendment.
A participant described the atmosphere as tense. Judges called it “a very sad day” for the institution, Dawn reported. At one point, a justice openly questioned whether the Supreme Court even possessed the constitutional authority to block Parliament from enacting laws or constitutional amendments, a remark that reportedly deepened the somber mood.
Chief Justice Afridi, according to a source familiar with the proceedings, told his colleagues that instead of sending him letters they could have simply come to his office, adding that his door was always open.
At least 13 judges attended. Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ayesha A. Malik were absent without stated reason; Justice Musarrat Hilali was indisposed. Four others, Justices Aminuddin Khan, Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Aamer Farooq and Ali Baqar Najafi, had already been nominated to the new Federal Constitutional Court and did not participate.
The judges expressed regret over the resignations of Justice Shah and Justice Minallah and agreed the judiciary needed to mount a “strong institutional response,” participants said. Some suggested sending a formal letter of protest to the government, but Chief Justice Afridi again reminded them that direct conversation with him would have been the proper channel.
He also reiterated a long-standing principle of Pakistani jurisprudence: the Supreme Court retains the power of judicial review, but only after a law or amendment has been passed, not before. In other words, the court cannot stop Parliament from legislating. As pressure mounted for a bolder gesture, one justice proposed that the entire bench, including the chief justice, tender their resignations if they truly wished to register a protest that went beyond ordinary constitutional remedies.
The idea, Dawn reported, was greeted with silence. No one spoke in support, and no vote was taken. Shortly afterward, the meeting concluded without consensus on any joint course of action. The account underscores the deep unease inside Pakistan’s highest judicial circles over an amendment that critics say tilts the balance of power decisively toward the executive and Parliament, but it also reveals the limits of judicial resistance when confronted with a constitutionally enacted restructuring of the courts themselves.
Neither the Supreme Court registrar nor the chief justice’s office has officially commented on the Nov. 14 meeting.
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
