Islamabad:
Four judges of the Supreme Court raised questions on the legality of the rules of the Supreme Court 2025, which was promulgated last month.
Judges Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Ayesha Malik and Athar Minallah opposed that the rules had been introduced without deliberation and approval of the complete court – a constitutional requirement.
“The current rules of the Supreme Court have never been placed before, or approved by the complete court. This omission is not simply procedural but goes to the very root of legality. Article 191 of the Constitution constitutes the Supreme Court with the power to make rules regulating its practice and its procedure, but this power is exercised collectively by the court as a establishment.
“The rules supervised without deliberation and approval of the full court therefore do not have the printur of the court itself and cannot acquire a binding legal status,” wrote the four judges in a four-page letter addressed to the chief judge of Pakistan Yahya Afridi and other judges SC.
The four judges also rejected to participate in the meeting of the full court held on Monday. We learn that at the meeting, no judge has referred to the objections raised. The meeting had been summoned to examine the modifications to the rules of the Supreme Court 2025.
The judges wondered why the full court was bypassed in the approval of the rules, but then summoned later to deliberate their amendment.
“By asking for his opinions only after having notified the rules, the exercise reduces the full court to a cosmetic role, a forum to ratify what has already been done rather than unloading its true constitutional function under article 191. In fact, the meeting is used to give a placing of legitimacy to an otherwise invalid process,” said the letter.
The judges also opposed the approval method.
“The rules have been dealt with by traffic. Traffic is an administrative convenience to deal with routine or minor procedural issues; it is not and cannot be the vehicle to fix the constitutional architecture of the governance of this court.
“Unless the full court itself has expressly resolved to adopt traffic for this purpose, the chief judge alone could not use it unilaterally. The current rules therefore suffer from substantial and procedural illegality.”
They also pointed out that the agenda itself had created confusion.
“He invokes rule 1 (4) concerning the” withdrawal of the difficulties “and refers to a committee already constituted by the chief judge. But no difficulty in giving effect to the rules has been identified, and no opportunity is currently present to invite this provision … Instead of clarifying the legitimacy of the rules, it only indicates their nullity.”
The judges called the concession of a complete justice meeting at this “confusing” and “fallacious” stage.
“On August 9, 2025, the rules were already informed as” approved “. However, within three days, on August 12, 2025, the chief judge asked for suggestions for modification …
“This sequence tacitly recognizes that the full court is the right forum for such deliberation, but only after the fact of unilateral approval.
The letter concludes that the only constitutionally coherent and honest institutional course would be to place the rules in their entirety before the whole court, to allow a real discussion and to request formal approval.
The judges asked that their objection be registered in the minutes and that the minutes be made public, declaring that people have the right to know how these rules were adopted without discussion.
Full court meeting
Later, a complete judicial assembly was held, which attended all the judges, with the exception of the four dissidents.
According to a declaration from the Supreme Court, after “in -depth deliberations and a busy debate”, the full court has agreed unanimously that the rules of the Supreme Court 2025 are a “life document” which will remain open to amendments to adapt to legal and social developments. It has also been decided that all the suggestions received will be examined by the Committee, which will then make recommendations to the complete court.
The court has also decided that for the moment, the costs and titles under the repeated rules of 1980 will continue to apply in the rules of 2025.
The chief judge called the development “an important stage” reflecting the commitment of the judiciary to strengthen institutional executives.
Lawyers react
Legal experts claim that the legitimacy of the new rules is in question. Speaking to the Express PK Press Club under cover of anonymity, a former prosecutor general of Pakistan said that there was “a lot of strength” in the objections raised by the four judges.
“It is very strange that the rules, which are modified after 45 years and are supposed to govern the procedure of the Supreme Court, are adopted so relaxed.
“However, to address supposed anomalies, a complete meeting of the court was called with such a fanfare. It is ironic that the new rules died due to pure poor management. What legitimacy would it now have in the eyes of the public?”
He added that the rules should have been supervised through an appropriate subcommittee of the full court, publicly disseminated for the comments, then officially approved by the whole court.
“The circulation method is used for bodies that meet frequently and where something urgent cannot wait for the next meeting. To use it for the framework of the rules after 45 years, by a full court which rarely meets, is a very bad preceding,” he said.
