ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Saturday sought, in a majority decision, comments from an Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge on a misconduct complaint against him.
The council, a constitutional forum that can hold high court judges accountable, also approved proposed amendments 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 high court judges under Article 209 of the Constitution.
Of these, it was unanimously decided to present 65 complaints, one was postponed and another was approved for further processing by majority decision.
Regarding complaints against IHC judges, 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, abstained from attending the meeting “in view of certain agenda items”.
The reconstituted council examined seven complaints, of which five were unanimously decided to file, while two were ordered to continue processing by majority decision.
The SJC, by majority, sought comments from Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan of the IHC on an allegation of misconduct. He was also reprimanded for another complaint.
Sources told The Express PAkGazette that the council has, for the time being, adjourned the matter of IHC judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, accused of having a dubious LLB degree. A member of the SJC, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, dismissed the complaint against Justice Jahangiri.
Following decisions on the current 74 complaints, a total of 87 cases remain pending initial consideration. The SJC has handled 155 complaints since October 2024.
Amendments to the code of conduct of judges
The council, by majority, approved amendments to the code of conduct of high court judges. Reports indicate that Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar dissented from the majority decision.
The proposed amendments were thoroughly deliberated and, with some modifications, approved by a majority. The council directed that the revised code be notified in the official gazette, distributed to all judges of high courts and published on the Supreme Court website.
Pursuant to the council’s decision of July 12, 2025, the Chief Justice of Pakistan proposed amendments to the code of conduct of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. After deliberation, the amended version was approved by majority decision.
Under the amended Article V of the code, a judge shall not engage in any public controversy (whether through speeches, writings, debates or comments) in any forum, and particularly not on political issues, even if such issues involve a question of law.
“You will not interact with the media, especially on issues that may provoke public debate or negatively affect collegiality and institutional discipline.
“However, when an allegation is made public against a judge, he may present the matter in writing before a committee comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and four senior judges of the Supreme Court, through the Registrar, for an appropriate institutional response.
“You will not publicly discuss any judicial or administrative matter or disclose any communication related to your personal or official affairs.”
Another amendment states that high court judges will refrain from presiding over or attending any social, cultural, political or diplomatic function. A new article 13 in the code states that requesting invitations from foreign or international agencies to attend conferences or meetings will be considered misconduct.
If a judge personally receives such an invitation, he must request the inviter to send it through the Chief Justice concerned. “A judge of a superior court shall not accept a dinner or reception given in his honor by an individual member of the bar.”
The amended code also highlights that in the performance of his duties, a judge must be guided solely by merit and remain independent and firm in the face of internal or external influences.
“If there are no legal powers available to counter such influence, the judge must seek an institutional response within the legal sphere.
“He shall immediately inform, in writing, the Chief Justice concerned, the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the four senior judges of the Supreme Court through the Registrar.
“In the case of a High Court, the Chief Justice shall refer the matter to a three-member committee within two days of receipt of the report. The committee shall decide the matter within fifteen days.
“If it is referred for judicial consideration, it should be decided as soon as possible, in accordance with the principles of fair trial and due process. If the chief justice or the committee fails to act within the prescribed time, the CJP and the four senior judges will take up the matter.”
Legal opinions
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqi said the new Article V was nothing less than gagging judges by destroying freedom of expression. “How can these judges protect citizens’ freedom of expression?” asked.
Siddiqi further stated that the 26th Amendment, the licensing policy, and the new Article V serve a similar purpose: “to control and silence independent judges.”
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii described the amendments as “little more than a blatant attempt to muzzle the few voices on the court that speak against the current status quo.”
Former Additional Solicitor General Waqar Rana pointed out 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 should not interfere with his constitutional duties. Our own Constitution recognizes an extrajudicial function of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, such as appointing an arbitrator in disputes between the federal and provincial governments.”
Lawyer Asad Rahim Khan said the proposed rules seek to deliberately isolate judges from their bar, from their community, from expressing any thoughts or research in general.
“This will have the effect of penalizing judges for even the most innocuous participation in public life, and will benefit only those mediocrities who have nothing to contribute in the first place. These rules are consistent with the diminishing independence of the judiciary,” he said.