Islamabad:
The chief judge of Pakistan Yahya Afridi justified his action so as not to constitute a full court to hear petitions contesting the 26th amendment in November of last year.
The dispute began on October 31 of last year, when judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and judge Munib Akhtar, being members of the committee, officially discussed a letter to the CJP Afridi, asking him to hold a meeting under the law of the Supreme Court and the procedure.
The two superior judges asked the meeting specifically to fight against petitions contesting the 26th amendment, which implies modifications of the judicial authority and the mandate.
Without response from the CJP, judges Shah and Akhtar held an independent meeting in the chambers of judge Akhtar to determine the following steps.
After this private session, the two judges decided by the majority of voting to repair the petitions against the 26th amendment before a full court on November 4 of last year.
Despite their decision, no cause has been issued.
While the report of the Committee meeting was published on the SC website, the CJP Afridi note is also attached in which it has given the justification so as not to constitute the full court.
The CJP declared that the constitutional mandate paying the jurisdiction of any bench of the Supreme Court to hear a request under article 184 of the Constitution is but very clear.
The CJP had personally asked for the opinion of the 13 judges of the Supreme Court, nine promoting a constitutional bench in a full court for hearing disputes to the amendment.
The disclosure was part of the detailed communication of the CJP responding to the concerns of judges Shah and Akhtar concerning the composition of the bench for a key constitutional case.
The CJP stressed that the decision reflected the collective preference of the majority of the court and that it had acted in good faith to preserve institutional harmony.
The freshly disclosed minutes of the meetings of the judges of the judges covering the period from October 31, 2024 to May 29, 2025, give a rare overview of the inner sanctuary of the Supreme Court, posing a paper trace to the staging of legal hair, procedural maneuvers and judicial diplomacy surrounding one of the most responsible amendments of the country.
According to disclosure, the chief judge informed the Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar judges of the majority view, warning that the confusion of a full court could undermine collegiality among the judges and expose the court to public criticism, as had happened in the recent past.
The Paper Trail begins with a meeting of October 31, 2024 in the chambers of judge Munib Akhtar, where the judges Munib Akhtar and Mansoor Ali Shah proposed to list the case before the full court on November 4.
They acted on the perception that the chief judge did not convene the meeting of the Committee of Judges on the issue.
Later, in a letter of November 5, 2024, the CJP Afridi cited article 191a and sub-clause 4 to emphasize that only the Constitutional Committee of judges could correct such cases in hearing, and that petitions under article 184, paragraph 3, must go to a constitutional bench, not by a complete jurisdiction.
He revealed that he had developed in private the opinions of the 13 judges and nine agreed with his position, and these conclusions were shared with the two “brother’s judges”.
Warning that to retrieve a propriety in this case, could strive the spirit of essential collegiality and invite criticism of the public, as has happened in the recent past.
Later in the afternoon, the CJP office received letters from the two judges, sealed and delivered to the secretary of the Pakistan Judicial Commission (JCP) for the guard until the committee’s November 5 meeting.
During the meeting, the CJP proposed that the commission, excluding, appoints members of the constitutional bench to hear petitions, in accordance with article 191a (3) a).
November 26, 2024: Committee vote
During a regular meeting of the Committee of Judges chaired by the CJP Afridi and which judge Shah attended and the chief of the constitutional bench Aminuddin Khan, judge Shah again proposed to convene a full court.
The majority, Afridi and Khan, decided that the CB would hear the case.
January 17, 2025: controversy on tax cases
At a meeting of the subsequent committee, judge Shah was absent but had previously submitted his opinion on a business of constitutional interpretation linked to tax, suggesting that it could be heard by a regular bench instead of a constitutional bench.
The CJP noted that the tax case had been initially fixed for January 27 before a regular bench, but a contradictory order planned for January 16.
By a majority of 2 to 1, the Committee decided to transfer the case to a CB and judged that all cases involving constitutional issues had to go to the CB unless a regular bench has already made an order.
January 24, 2025: dispute of the midnight list
Later, the letter from judge Shah, also made public, described his objection to an informed at 9:33 pm, via his secretary, that a larger bench of six members, led by judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail, had been trained to hear an intra-haired appeal.
Shah says he had previously agreed at an informal meeting at a bench of five members of higher judges, excluding conflicts of interest.
According to Shah, the CJP had suggested a bench of four members, but later at night, at 9:30 p.m. via Whatsapp, he was invited to approve a bench of six members. He opposed, noting that two of his members – the Mandokhail and Muhammad judges and Muhammad Ali Mazhar – were part of the constitutional bench and therefore should not hear the case.
Shah added that the file had never been provided to him.
May 20, 2025: Delegation of the debate on powers
During a meeting of the three -members committee, judge Shah argued that the powers of the Supreme Court (practice and procedure) of 2023 could not be delegated to the registrar, because the law did not contain any provision of this type.
He suggested replacing the word “quorum” with “majority” and providing vacancies by the most following older judge.
