In another letter that highlights the crack within the Judiciary, four Judges of the Supreme Court (SC) expressed their reservations on Monday regarding the process adopted for the review and approval of the rules of the Supreme Court 2025.
They nickname the meeting of the complete court, which was convened for this purpose today, a mere “approval seal” for the rules, which they said were already decided and approved unilaterally.
The letter addressed to the President of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, a copy of which it is available with Dawn.comHe was sent by the senior judge of Puisne, Judge Mansoor Ali Shah, Judge Munib Akhtar, Judge Ayesha Malik and Judge Athar Minallah. The four judges also skipped the complete court meeting held later today.
They pointed out that “if the full court was not considered necessary for the adoption of the rules themselves, how can it be summoned now to deliberate in its amendment?”
The judges said that the working document of the Agenda of the meeting declared that according to rule 1 (4) of the rules of the 2025 Supreme Court, the CJP can “eliminate any difficulty to give effect to these rules” on the recommendations of a committee that was constituted by it and had already been formed.
In addition, “the president of the Supreme Court, through a letter dated August 12, 2025, informed the judges that the rules had already been approved through the circulation and duly notified in the Gazette on August 9, 2025,” said the judges.
However, they also affirmed, the CJP had sought suggestions “for new amendments” to the rules.
In question the legality of the rules themselves, the judges indicated that the “rules of the current Supreme Court were never placed before, nor approved by the full court.”
Citing article 191 of the Constitution, they said that the SC had the “power to make rules that regulate its practice and procedure, but this power is collectively exercised by the Court as an institution.”
The judges concluded that any established rule “without deliberation and approval of the complete court” lacked its approval and could not acquire “binding legal status.”
They were of the opinion that the rules, in their current form, “suffer from substantive and procedural illegality.” In this regard, they expressed reservations that the rules were processed through circulation.
“The circulation is an administrative convenience to deal with routine or minor procedural matters; it is not, and it cannot be, the vehicle to establish the constitutional architecture of the governance of this court.
“Unless the full court had expressly resolved to adopt the circulation for this purpose, only the president of the Supreme Court could not unilaterally resort to it.”
Highlighting more the confusion around the matter, the judges said that the working document for the meeting invoked the “rule 1 (r) with respect to the elimination of difficulties” during the process, despite the fact that there is no need to invoke the provision.
The judges deliberate that the provision was invoked only “to defend or justify the unilateral process already carried out.”
“Instead of clarifying the legitimacy of the rules, this only exposes your disease: if there is no difficulty, why place such a point before the complete court?” They asked.
The four SC judges described the purpose behind the “disconcerting and fallacious” movement. The judges, in their letter, questioned why a complete court was convened if the rules had already been notified as “approved” on August 9.
In three days, on August 12, CJP “sought amendment suggestions [to] The same rules, ”said the judges.
Then they added that “this sequence tacitly recognizes that the complete court is the correct forum for such deliberation”, but pointed out that it was only carried out after the “consummated fact of unilateral approval.”
“This is equivalent to putting the car before the horse first declares the valid rules, and then calling the complete court simply to consider the pieces of pieces,” they added.
In that note, the judges regretted that the “meeting is being used to give a sheet of legitimacy to an invalid process”, and aimed to reduce the role of a complete cut to only “cosmetics.”
The forum was being used to ratify “what has already been done instead of downloading its true constitutional function by virtue of article 191,” the judges said.
The judges recommended that the Constitutional Action course have been “to place the rules as a whole, before the full court, allow genuine discussion and deliberation, and only then seek formal approval.”
Asking for the abandonment of the meeting, the judges said it was “designed to simply serve as an approval seal” and that it proceeds with it would be equal to reducing the “complete court to late occurrence, not for decision making but for the control of damage.”
The judges pointed out that such a movement “undermines the collective authority of this court.”
Citing the previous reserves, the four judges refused to attend the complete court, unless a constitutional action course is adopted, stating that “we do not see any sense in attending a meeting that is based on modifying the rules that, in our respectful opinion, already suffer illegality both in substance and in process.”
The letter also requested that the objection be presented in the minutes of the complete judicial meeting and that the meeting is made public.
“People have the right to know how the rules that govern the internal life of the Court were notified without discussion or deliberation among their judges,” the letter added, describing the meeting a ploy to “cover up” the entire process in a “appearance of legitimacy.”
“When opening our deliberations at the eyes of the people we serve, we reinforce confidence without which no constitutional court can work,” the letter concluded.
Last week, Judge Shah, in a separate letter to the CJP, had questioned why the historical review of the 1980 rules was “approved by circulation”, instead of after an exhaustive discussion in the complete court.
In March, a committee consisting of CJP Afridi had the task of carrying out an exhaustive review of the rules of the 1980 Supreme Court, and formulated an integral draft of the rules of the Supreme Court, 2025.
The objective was to improve transparency, efficiency and general effectiveness in judicial procedures.
However, when the draft of the new rules was distributed among the judges for their consideration, some senior judges opposed the idea of approveing them without a complete judicial meeting, while the legal fraternity also expressed reservations on certain provisions.
Subsequently, the CJP Aphridi convened a complete judicial meeting on September 8 (today) to end the rules and reconstituted the Committee of four Judges under rule 1 (4) of the proposed rules to recommend solutions for any difficulty in implementation.
Complete court meeting
Later in the day, the complete court meeting was held without the participation of the four judges.
A press release from the Supreme Court said that the CJP Aphridi welcomed the participants and praised the efforts of the committee constituted to review the rules of the Supreme Court, 1980. He appreciated the “exhaustive work” of the committee, made with the contributions of other judges and the legal fraternity, which resulted in a comprehensive draft of the rules of the Supreme Court, 2025.
The president of the Supreme Court informed the complete court on the rules, according to the press release, and added that after detailed deliberations on several provisions, the participants of the meeting unanimously agreed that the rules of the Supreme Court, 2025, were a “living document” and should be subject to a continuous review and amendment as required from time to time.
“The full court, after considering several aspects and deliberating on some of the critical provisions, decided to unanimously postpone the implementation of amendments to the extent that the improvement of judicial rates and the values for the moment.
“The honorable president of the Supreme Court described this development as a significant milestone, which reflects the commitment of the Judiciary to strengthen institutional frameworks and ensure that the rules of the Supreme Court remain dynamic, receptive and in line with contemporary needs,” said the press release.
