Islamabad:
The president of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Yahya Afridi, justified his action to not constitute a complete court to listen to requests that challenge the amendment 26 in November last year.
The dispute began on October 31 of last year, when Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Judge Munib Akhtar, being members of the Committee, formally addressed a letter to the CJP Aphridi, urging him to hold a meeting under the Law of Practice and Procedure of the Supreme Court 2023.
The two senior judges requested the meeting specifically to address the requests that challenge the 26th amendment, which implies changes in judicial authority and tenure.
Without CJP response, Judges Shah and Akhtar held an independent meeting in Judge Akhtar’s chambers to determine the next steps.
After this private session, the two judges decided on most votes to fix the requests against the 26th amendment before a complete court on November 4 of last year.
Despite its decision, no cause was issued.
As records of the committee meeting on the SC website were issued, the CJP Aphridi note is also attached in which it gave justification for not constituting the full court.
The CJP said that the constitutional mandate by awarding jurisdiction to any bank in the Supreme Court to listen to a request under article 184 of the Constitution is very clear.
The CJP had personally sought the opinion of the 13 judges of the Supreme Court, and nine favored a constitutional bank on a complete court for hearing to the amendment.
The dissemination occurred as part of the detailed communication of the CJP that addresses the concerns of Judges Shah and Akhtar with respect to the Bank’s composition for a key constitutional issue.
The CJP emphasized that the decision reflected the collective preference of the majority of the Court and that it had acted in good faith to preserve institutional harmony.
The recently revealed minutes of the meetings of the Judges Committee that cover the period from October 31, 2024 to May 29, 2025, provide a rare vision of the inner sanctuary of the Apex court, exposing a trace of paper of the placement of legal hair, the procedural maneuver and the judicial diplomacy that surrounds one of the most political amendments in the recent memory of the country.
According to the revelations, the president of the Supreme Court informed Judges Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar of the majority hearing, warning that calling a complete court could undermine the university among the judges and expose the court to public criticism, as had happened in the recent past.
The paper path begins with a meeting of October 31, 2024 in the cameras of Judge Munib Akhtar, where Judges Munib Akhtar and Mansoor Ali Shah proposed to list the case before the full court on November 4.
They acted on the perception that the president of the Supreme Court was not calling a meeting of the Judges Committee on the matter.
Later, in a letter of November 5, 2024, the CJP Afridi cited article 191a and subcllaus 4 to emphasize that only the constitutional committee of the judges could set such cases for the hearing, and that the requests under article 184 (3) must go to a constitutional bank, not a full court.
He revealed that he had privately revasted the opinions of the 13 judges and nine agreed with his position, and these findings were shared with the two ‘brothers judges’ who advocate otherwise.
Warning that calling a complete court in this case could get rid of the spirit of essential collegiality and invite public criticism, as had happened in the recent past.
Later that afternoon, the CJP office received letters from the two judges, sealed and delivered the Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) for custody until the meeting of November 5 of the Commission.
At the meeting, the CJP proposed that the commission, excluded to itself, names the members of the Constitutional Bank to listen to the requests, in line with article 191a (3) (a).
November 26, 2024: Voting of the Committee
At a meeting of the Regular Judges Committee chaired by the CJP Afridi and Judge Shah and the Chief of Constitutional Bank Judge Aminuddin Khan, Judge Shah, again, proposed to call a complete court again.
The majority, Afridi and Khan, decided that the CB would listen to the case.
January 17, 2025: controversy of the fiscal case
At a later meeting of the committee, Judge Shah was absent, but previously had submitted his views on a case of constitutional interpretation related to taxes, which suggests that it could be heard by a regular bank instead of a constitutional bank.
The CJP said that the tax case had originally established for January 27 before a regular bank, but a conflicting order scheduled it for January 16.
For a majority of 2 to 1, the Committee decided to transfer the case to a CB and ruled that all cases involving constitutional questions must go to CB unless a regular bank has already issued an order.
January 24, 2025: dispute of the midnight list
Later, the letter from Judge Shah was also made public, describes his objection to being informed at 9:33 pm, through his secretary, which had formed a larger bank of six members, headed by Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail, to listen to an intra-court appeal.
Shah says he had previously agreed at an informal meeting of an Bank of Senior Judges of five members, excluding any of the conflicts of interest.
According to Shah, the CJP had suggested a four -member bank, but later that night, at 9:30 pm through WhatsApp, he was asked to approve a bank of six members. He opposed, noting that two of its members, Judges Commandkhail and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, were part of the Constitutional Bank and, therefore, should not hear the case.
Shah added that the case file was never provided.
May 20, 2025: Delegation debate of powers
At a meeting of the three -members committee, Judge Shah argued that the powers under the Law of the Supreme Court (practice and procedure), 2023, could not delegate to the registrar, since the law did not contain said provision.
He suggested replacing the word “quorum” with “majority” and filling vacancies with the next highest judge.
