Islamabad:
Four Judges of the Supreme Court have asked questions about the legality of the rules of the 2025 Supreme Court, which were promulgated last month.
Judges Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Ayesha Malik and Athar Minallah objected that the rules were introduced without deliberation and approval of the complete court, a constitutional requirement.
“The current rules of the Supreme Court were never placed before, nor approved by the Complete Court. This omission is not simply procedure, but goes to the very root of legality. Article 191 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court with the power to make rules that regulate its practice and procedure, but this power is collectively exercised by the Court as an institution.
“The rules framed without deliberation and approval of the complete court, therefore, lack the Printur of the same Court, and cannot acquire a binding legal status,” the four judges wrote in a four -page letter addressed to the President of the Supreme Court of Pakistan Yahya Aphridi and other SC judges.
The four judges also challenged themselves from attending the meeting of the complete court held on Monday. It is learned that during the meeting no judge referred to the objections raised. The meeting had been convened to consider amendments to the rules of the Supreme Court 2025.
The judges questioned why the full court was avoided when approved the rules, but then convened later to deliberate in their amendment.
“When looking for their 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 downloading its true constitutional function by virtue of article 191. Indeed, the meeting is being used to give a sheet of legitimacy to one process in another invalid way,” said the letter.
The judges opposed the approval method.
“The rules were processed through circulation. Circulation is an administrative convenience to deal with routine or minor issues; it is not, and it cannot be, the vehicle to establish the constitutional architecture of the governance of this court.
“Unless the full court had expressly resolved to adopt the circulation for this purpose, the president of the Supreme Court could not unilaterally resort to it. Therefore, the current rules suffer from substantive and procedural illegality.”
They also pointed out that the agenda itself created confusion.
“It invokes rule 1 (4) with respect to the ‘elimination of difficulties’ and refers to a committee already constituted by the president of the Supreme Court. But no difficulty has been identified to give effect to the rules, nor has any occasion to invoke this provision has arisen … instead of clarifying the legitimacy of the rules, this only exposes its childhood.”
The judges described the call for a complete court meeting at this “disconcerting” and “fallazing” stage.
“On August 9, 2025, the rules were already notified as ‘approved’. However, in three days, on August 12, 2025, the president of the Supreme Court sought amendment suggestions …
“This sequence tacitly recognizes that the full court is the correct forum for said deliberation, but only after the consummate fact of unilateral approval. This is equivalent to putting the car before the horse, first declaring the valid rules, and then calling the complete court simply to consider the batch amendments.”
The Charter concludes that the only constitutionally consistent and institutional course honest would be to place the rules in its entirety before the full court, allow a genuine discussion and seek formal approval.
The judges requested that their objection be registered in the minutes and that the minutes be made public, stating that people have the right to know how such rules were adopted without discussion.
Complete court meeting
Later, a complete judicial meeting was held, attended by all the judges, except the four dissidents.
According to a statement from the Supreme Court, after “exhaustive deliberations and an agitated debate”, the full court unanimously agreed that the rules of the 2025 Supreme Court are a “living document” that will remain open to amendments to accommodate legal and social developments. It was also decided that all the suggestions received will be examined by the Committee, which will then make recommendations to the complete court.
The court also decided that for the moment, the fees and the values under the repealed rules of 1980 will continue to apply in the rules of 2025.
The president of the Supreme Court described the development “a significant milestone” that reflects the commitment of the Judiciary to strengthen institutional frameworks.
The lawyers react
Legal experts say that the legitimacy of the new rules is under serious doubts. Speaking with the Express PAkGazette on anonymity, a former Pakistan attorney said that there was “a lot of strength” in the objections raised by the four judges.
“It is very strange that the rules, which are modified after 45 years and are destined to govern the Supreme Court procedure, are adopted in such an informal way.
“However, to address the alleged anomalies, a complete judicial meeting was convened with such a fanfare. It is ironic that the new rules die born due to poor management. What legitimacy would they now have in the eyes of the public?”
He added that the rules should have been framed through an adequate subcommittee of the complete court, they circulated publicly by comments and then formally approved by the full court.
“The circulation method is used for the bodies that often meet and where something urgent cannot wait until the next meeting. Use it to frame the rules after 45 years, by a complete court that is rarely found, it is a very bad precedent,” he said.
