ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Saturday, by a majority, sought comments from an Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge on a misconduct complaint filed against him.
The council – a constitutional forum that can hold superior court judges to account – also approved proposed amendments to the code of conduct for judges – a move that many say 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 judges of superior courts under Article 209 of the Constitution.
Of these, 65 complaints were decided unanimously, one complaint was postponed and one was approved for further processing by a 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, recused himself from attending the meeting “in view of certain issues on the agenda”.
The reconstituted council considered seven complaints, five of which were decided unanimously and two of which were ordered to be addressed by a majority.
The SJC, by majority, sought comments from Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan of the IHC on a complaint of misconduct. He was also warned over another complaint.
Sources told The Express PK Press Club that the board, for the time being, has postponed the case of IHC judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, who is accused of having a dubious LLB degree. A member of the SJC, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, dismissed the complaint against Justice Jahangiri.
Following the decisions rendered on the 74 current complaints, a total of 87 cases remain awaiting an initial examination. The SJC has processed 155 complaints since October 2024.
Changes to the Code of Conduct for Judges
The council approved, by majority, the modifications to the code of ethics of superior court judges. Reports indicate that Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar disagreed with the majority decision.
The proposed amendments were subject to extensive deliberations and, with some modifications, were approved by majority. The council ordered that the revised code be notified in the Official Gazette, distributed to all superior court judges and published on the Supreme Court website.
Pursuant to the council’s decision dated July 12, 2025, the Chief Justice of Pakistan has proposed amendments to the code of conduct of judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. After deliberation, the modified version was approved by majority.
According to the amended Article V of the code, a judge shall not engage in any public controversy – by way of speech, writing, debate or comment – in any forum, and particularly on political questions, even if those questions involve a point of law.
“He must not interact with the media, particularly on issues likely to provoke public debate or undermine institutional collegiality and discipline.
“When, however, an allegation is made public against a judge, the judge may refer 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.
“He shall not discuss publicly any judicial or administrative matter or disclose any communications relating to his personal or official affairs.”
Another amendment provides that superior court judges must refrain from presiding over or attending social, cultural, political or diplomatic functions. A new article 13 of the code states that seeking 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 ask the inviter to route it through the chief justice concerned. “A judge of a superior court may not accept a dinner or reception offered in his honor by an individual member of the bar.
The amended code also emphasizes that in discharging his duties, a judge must be guided solely by merit and remain independent and firm in the face of internal or external influences.
“If no legal power is available to counter such influence, the judge must seek an institutional response in the legal field.
“He shall immediately inform, in writing, the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the four most senior judges of the Supreme Court through the Registrar.
“In the case of a High Court, the Chief Justice will place the matter before a three-member committee within two days of receipt of the report. The committee will decide the matter within a fortnight.
“In case of referral for judicial review, the decision should be made 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 most senior judges will take up the matter.”
Legal notices
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqi said the new Article V was nothing short of gagging judges by destroying freedom of expression. “How will such judges ever be able to protect citizens’ freedom of expression? he asked.
Siddiqi further said that the 26th Amendment, the furlough policy, and the new Article V all serve a similar purpose: “to control and silence independent judges.”
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii described the amendments as “little more than a brazen attempt to muzzle the few voices on the bench who speak out against the current status quo.”
Former Attorney 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 must not interfere with their constitutional functions. Our own Constitution recognizes an extrajudicial role for 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 distance judges from their bar, from their community, from any thinking or inquiry in general.
“This will have the effect of penalizing judges, even if they participate in the most innocuous way in public life, and will only benefit mediocrities who have nothing to contribute in the first place. These rules fit well with the growing independence of the judiciary,” he said.
