Islamabad:
The conflict between the high -level judges of the Supreme Court has intensified as four judges who opposed the elevation of the judges of the Court superior to the Apex court have been eliminated from the key administrative committees under the Yahya Afridi Restructuring Plan From Yahya Afridi.
CJP Aphridi has reconstituted several committees, replacing senior judges with the Junior. Those excluded from critical roles include Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Judge Munib Akhtar, Judge Ayesha Malik, Judge Athar Minallah and Judge Aqelh Ahmad Abbasi.
The reports indicate that Judge Mansoor Ali Shah has been eliminated from his advice on the Federal Judicial Academy (FJA), a position he had held during the past year.
Judge Munib Akhtar and Judge Ayesha Malik have been excluded from the Committee of the Remistal Program of the Law, which will now be directed by Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with Judge Miangul Hassan Aurengzeb as the other member.
Similarly, Judge Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi has been withdrawn from the SC Construction Committee, while Judge Athar Minallah has lost his position in the archive and the committee of the Supreme Court Museum.
In addition, Judge Irfan Saadat Khan has not been included in any of the recently reconstituted committees.
It was widely expected that the conflict between the judges of the Supreme Court decreased during the mandate of the President of the Supreme Court Afridi, but that did not happen.
Legal experts believe that if the Aphridi CJP constituted a complete court to listen to requests against the 26th constitutional amendment, the situation could have developed differently.
Two judges, Judge Mansoor Ali Shah and Judge Munib Akhtar, who formed the majority in the pertinent committee, had ordered the constitution of a full court to listen to the requests in the first week of November. However, instead of listing the case, CJP Aphridi convened a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to select judges for the Constitutional Bank.
The Government managed to appoint most of its favorite judges for the Constitutional Bank, which subsequently delayed the audition of requests against the amendment. Instead of waiting for the final decision on amendment 26, CJP Afridi proceeded with JCP meetings to consider the judicial appointments of the Superior Court.
During their first 100 days of mandate, 36 judges were appointed in the higher courts and seven were elevated to the Apex court.
During their first 100 days in office, 36 judges were appointed for the higher courts, and seven were elevated to the Supreme Court. However, the CJP Aphridi recognized the influence of the government in the appointment process, raising serious concerns about the integrity and competence of several newly appointed judges.
Judge Shah had urged the JCP to establish rules to nominate the judges to the Constitutional Bank, but his suggestion did not entertain.
In addition, when a three -members bank led by Judge Shah questioned the jurisdiction of a regular bank in a tax case, the matter was withdrawn from his bank by a committee led by Judge Afridi.
The measure has caused an ongoing debate about whether the committee had the authority to annul a court order.
The tensions intensified even more when the members of the Constitutional Bank expressed a visible frustration with the regular bank, led by Judge Shah, to maintain that four high -ranking SC judges could face contempt procedures.
When the CJP Aphridi convened a JCP meeting to consider eight new appointments of the Supreme Court, four SC judges opposed the measure, insisting that the pending request for a complete judicial hearing on the 26th amendment must be decided first.
In defending the new appointments, the CJP Aphridi commented that the “corporate judges” did not fulfill their responsibilities, a pointed reference to Judge Shah and Judge Munib Akhtar.
On February 10, both Judge Shah and Judge Munib Akhtar boycotted the JCP meeting on Citas SC. Subsequently, they were removed from the key administrative committees.
Some lawyers see the confrontation as a clash between beneficiaries and judges harmed by the 26th amendment.
