Islamabad:
The conflict between the superior judges of the Supreme Court has intensified while four judges who opposed the elevation of the judges of the High Court before the Court of Apex were removed from the main administrative committees of the restructuring plan for Chief judge of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi.
CJP Afridi has reconstructed several committees, replacing senior judges with junior judges. Persons excluded from critical roles are judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Judge Munib Akhtar, Judge Ayesha Malik, Judge Athar Minallah and Judge Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi.
The reports indicate that judge Mansoor Ali Shah was withdrawn from his advisory role in the Judicial Federal Academy (FJA), a position he had held in the past year.
The Munib Akhtar judge and judge Ayesha Malik have been excluded from the Clerc Program Committee of the Act, which will now be led by judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with judge Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb as the other member.
Likewise, judge Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi was withdrawn from the SC building committee, while judge Athar Minallah lost his position on the Committee of Archives and Museums of the Supreme Court.
In addition, judge Irfan Saadat Khan was not included in any of the newly reconstructed committees.
It was largely planned that the conflict between the judges of the Supreme Court would be calmed during the mandate of the Chief Afridor, but that did not happen.
Legal experts believe that if the CJP Afridi had formed a full court to hear petitions against the 26th constitutional amendment, the situation could have been played differently.
Two judges, judge Mansoor Ali Shah and judge Munib Akhtar, who trained the majority of the committee concerned, had ordered the constitution of a full court to hear the petitions during the first week of November. However, instead of listing the case, CJP Afridi summoned a meeting of the Pakistan Judicial Commission (JCP) to select the judges of the Constitutional bench.
The government managed to appoint the majority of its favorite judges to the constitutional bench, which then delayed hearing the petitions against the amendment. Rather than waiting for the final decision on the 26th amendment, the CJP Afridi carried out JCP meetings to examine the judicial appointments of the High Court.
During his mandate of first 100 days, 36 judges were appointed before the high lessons and seven were raised to the Supreme Court.
During his first 100 days of mandate, 36 judges were appointed before the high lessons and seven were raised to the Supreme Court. However, the CJP Afridi recognized the government’s influence in the appointment process, which raises serious concerns concerning the integrity and competence of several newly appointed judges.
Judge Shah had urged the JCP to establish rules for the appointment of judges on the constitutional bench, but his suggestion was not entertained.
In addition, when a bench of three members led by judge Shah questioned the jurisdiction of a regular bench in a tax case, the case was withdrawn from its bench by a committee led by Judge Afridi.
This decision sparked a debate in progress on the question of whether the committee had the power to overcome a legal order.
Tensions have also intensified when the members of the constitutional bench expressed visible frustration with regard to the regular bench, led by Judge Shah, for judging that four superior judges of SC could face an outrage procedure.
When the CJP Afridi summoned a JCP meeting to examine eight new appointments from the Supreme Court, four SC judges opposed this decision, insisting that the request for a complete hearing of the court on the 26th amendment should Be decided first.
Defending the new appointments, the CJP Afridi pointed out that “corporate judges” did not meet their responsibilities – a reference pointed at Judge Shah and Judge Munib Akhtar.
On February 10, judge Shah and judge Munib Akhtar boycotted the JCP meeting with SC appointments. Thereafter, they were removed from the main administrative committees.
Some lawyers consider the impasse as a confrontation between the beneficiaries and the injured judges of the 26th amendment.
