Senior Judge Raises Institutional Concerns
ISLAMABAD – Senior Supreme Court judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has formally written to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, urging him to publicly respond to six critical questions concerning judicial policies and practices. The letter highlights what Justice Shah described as “pressing institutional concerns” and emphasizes the need for transparency within the country’s top court.
Previous Letters Remained Unanswered
In his letter, Justice Shah noted that he had previously sent multiple communications to the CJP but had received “no written or verbal response.” He clarified that his correspondence should not be seen as a personal grievance but rather as part of his duty as the court’s senior-most judge after the chief justice.
“As the senior-most judge of this Court after yourself, I write this letter with reluctance, but in discharge of an unavoidable institutional duty. What compels me to write is your persistent and complete indifference,” Justice Shah wrote.
Call for Public Response at Judicial Conference
Justice Shah has requested that the CJP address these questions publicly during the upcoming judicial conference scheduled for September 8. The conference, marking the start of the new judicial year, is expected to review reforms introduced under the chief justice’s tenure and outline priorities for the year ahead.
Key Questions Raised by Justice Mansoor
The six questions Justice Shah put forward touch on fundamental issues of judicial independence, decision-making, and institutional processes:
- PaPA Committee: Why has the Practice and Procedure Act (PaPA) Committee never been convened, despite its statutory role in constituting benches?
- Revision of 1980 Rules: Why was the major revision of the Supreme Court’s 1980 Rules approved by circulation rather than open deliberation in a Full Court Meeting?
- Dissenting Opinions Policy: Why was the policy on releasing dissenting opinions decided through soliciting individual judges’ views instead of collective discussion?
- General Standing Order on Leave: Why was a new order issued that, according to Justice Shah, undermines judicial independence and contradicts the 1997 Presidential Order?
- 26th Amendment Petitions: Why have cases challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment not been fixed before the original Full Court?
- Judicial Independence: Is the current leadership fostering independence among judges or enforcing compliance to turn the court into a regimented body?
Broader Implications
The letter signals growing unease within the judiciary over questions of independence, transparency, and institutional reforms. Justice Shah’s decision to make his concerns public marks a rare instance of open dissent within the Supreme Court’s top ranks, raising the possibility of a larger debate on judicial governance at the September 8 conference.
