Islamabad:
In an abrasing letter, the senior judge of Puisne of the Supreme Court, Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, accused the president of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi of undermining the independence of the Apex court, urging him to answer six questions publicly at the Judicial Conference on September 8.
In the seven -page letter dated September 4, Judge Shah said it was the “persistent and complete indifference” of the CJP that forced him to write him as his previous letters and the written communications on several unanswered and not discussed issues.
“Not once I have received a written or verb response. Such silence of the CJP to the tallest judge of the court is not simply discouraging; it undermines the collegial traditions of this court and violates institutional courtesy without which a constitutional court cannot work,” he said.
Listing the problems, Judge Shah asked the CJP why he had never summoned the Tres Member Committee formed under the Practice and Procedure Law, 2023 “to put an end to the single man’s show in the formation of banks.”
He said the law required that all causes, matters, requests, appeals or revisions, apart from those within the Constitutional Bank’s domain under article 191 (3), are placed before the banks constituted by the committee of three “Pope” members.
“However, since its assumption of charge in October 2024, a single official meeting of the Papa Committee has been convened. Bank formation and cause lists are issued unilaterally, without any deliberation of the committee.
“The lists are distributed by signatures, waiting for members to support them blindly without discussion about the assignment or categorization of cases. As the main member of the committee, I have not had the opportunity to participate in their work as ordered by law.”
He said that this was a direct violation of the law and raises serious concerns. He asked why Junior judges are regularly assigned to banks of three members, while the superior judges are limited to banks of two members.
“Why do matters of national importance with long -range political implications are not set before higher banks? The employer suggests that independent judges are being left aside, not for reasons of efficiency, but for reasons of control,” he said.
Judge Shah also asked CJP Afridi why “historical review” of the rules of the Supreme Court, 1980 was approved by circulation instead of after the discussion and deliberation at a complete judicial meeting.
He said that SC rules are a constitutional document that governs the operation of the Court and its first review in four decades was an event of historical importance, which required a complete judicial meeting on the administrative side.
“On the other hand, he chose to approve the draft of rules by circulation, a proper process for routine matters so as not to remodel the constitutional framework of the court.
“By avoiding deliberation, he deprived the court of collective wisdom and a decreased judicial dialogue. This course reflects a lack of collegiality and a preference for unilateral authority,” he said.
Judge Shah also asked Judge Aphridi why the policy of freeing dissident opinions adopted requesting individual opinions of the judges instead of an open deliberation at a complete judicial meeting.
He said that the recent policy on the release of dissident opinions with the majority trial was approved through a unique process of requesting opinions of individual judges by the registrar.
“There is no legal or institutional basis for the individual opinion meeting on such critical matters unless it is specifically authorized by the full court, and even then, only for issues that are procedural.
“It cannot be treated as a substitute for the total deliberation of the Court, nor the responses to this letter can be used to formulate the policy in isolation. A matter of jurisprudential weight was reduced to a secret exercise of verification boxes and the court was denied the wealth of the open deliberation.
He said that a complete judicial meeting is not simply a procedural formality, it is the basis of judicial collegiality. It allows all judges to join, deliberate, exchange ideas and, through open dialogue, persuade or persuade.
“In that forum, a judge can review or refine his point of view after listening to his colleagues, or can help develop a collective wisdom that is much more robust than isolated responses. This essential element of judicial democracy is completely lost when opinions in writing and silos are sought.”
The senior judge of Puisne also asked the CJP to tell the Judicial Conference on why a permanent general order (SGO) was issued with a licensed that submitted the judges to inconsistent controls with the judicial independence and the presidential order of 1997.
He said that for the first time in the history of the Court, a OFG dictates that the judges are “completely” available to the State, a language totally oblivious to a Constitutional Court.
He said the judges are not regimented officers and their independence is constitutionally entrenched.
“Worldwide in the United Kingdom, USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Germany, France, Singapore and India – officials. The license is recognized as a right, not a favor.
He said that the requirement freshly introduced under the OGM that a judge of the Supreme Court, while on vacation or vacation, must reveal that his residential address and contact data are oblivious to the practice of constitutional courts worldwide.
“Provided with the spirit of the Bureaucracy of Civil Service and tries to transplant it to the Judiciary, with deeply corrosive consequences. A judge of this Court is not a supervised official of the State but a constitutional actor whose independence is decisive and personal.
“To force the dissemination of a judge’s private residence, it is not the administration, it is surveillance. It reduces the dignity of the office to that of an employee monitored and covers a control instrument in the procedure outfit.
“No Constitutional Court of Reputation, the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom or the Constitutional Court of South Africa have imposed such a condition,” he added.
He also asked the CJP why the requests that challenge the 26th constitutional amendment have not been included in the hearing before the original complete court.
He said that the legitimacy of the CJP office and the court hang in the balance in the pending requests that challenge the 26th amendment, but the requests remain unheard of for almost a year, although they refer to the independence of the Court.
“They must be heard by the original complete court, excluding high judges after the amendment.
Until then, any initiative under its leadership remains institutionally fragile, since its foundation is constitutionally suspicious. True leadership is not to manage compliance, but to ensure that the court goes over suspicion as the brave guardian of the Constitution, “he said.
The judge also asked the superior judge if he is promoting independence between the judges, or enforcing compliance to convert this court into a regimented force.
“These are institutional questions that hit the heart of Independence. As the new judicial year begins, and in view of the judicial conference, he has gathered to review the reforms and establish priorities, the nation and the judges of this Court seek its President of Justice not by silence but for clarity.
“I trust that he will use the Judicial Conference as a moment of institutional renewal answering these questions and reaffirming the principles of collegiality and constitutional fidelity,” he added.
