A letter, written by the Judges of the Supreme Court Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar, has exposed another deeper crack within the Pakistan Apex Court, this time on the failure of the President of the Court of Justice of Yahya Aphridi to implement what the two judges were a legally binding decision by a committee of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court of Supreme Accounting on accounting against curture condition.
The letter, which has arisen in the midst of a beer elaboration controversy, reveals a clash on judicial independence, transparency and the management of one of the most politically charged constitutional issues of Pakistan: the amendment 26, which alters the authority and judicial possession, and has been a cane of lamps for the debate, with the opposition parties and the legal experts that questions its impact on the judicial autonity.
The letter establishes that on October 31, 2024, Judges Shah and Akhtar, members of the Supreme Court Committee formed under the Practice and Procedure Law, 2023, had pressed for a complete judicial hearing to address the requests that challenge the validity of the amendment. They argued that only a collective award by all the judges could restore the public faith in the institution, which was seen at that time was mistreated by political pressures.
However, the CJP Aphridi, citing informal private consultations with other judges, insisted that the cases should be assigned to a constitutional bank, a body created under the same amendment that was under scrutiny.
In a dramatic turn, the two judges said they had summoned a formal meeting of practices and procedures the same day, deciding for the majority to schedule the requests for November 4, 2024, before a complete court. The Supreme Court registrar never complied with the decision, even after a subsequent letter was issued.
The CJP, which jumped the meeting, then issued notes that justify their refusal to meet. The two CJP notes, recently loaded on the website of the Supreme Court, suggest that it had refused to implement the committee’s decision because such movement could have damping the “very necessary spirit of collegiality” between the judges and “expose the court to the public scrutiny.”
However, Judges Shah and Akhtar complain that these notes were never shared with the committee members, but they appeared at a meeting of the Judicial Commission, a measure that judges believe it was legally inappropriate. The failure of the registrar to act in the committee directive increased even more tensions, leaving the requests without resolving almost ten months later. The judges also declared that they had thoroughly examined both notes written by the CJP, now available in the public domain, and concluded that they did not provide a valid reason or legal justification for breach of the “legally binding” decision of the Committee of Practices and Procedures on October 31, 2024.
The letter also raises questions about the sudden public dissemination of the minutes of the Committee of the October 31 meeting on the website of the Supreme Court despite a previous decision to restrict its circulation. The letter suggests that this may be linked to the next resumption of constitutional banks in September 2025. The judges have also highlighted amendments to the Practice and Procedure Law that the Judge Akhtar eliminated from the committee, labeling it as an attempt to centralize power with the CJP.
The controversy occurs at a critical situation for the Judicial Power of Pakistan, already dealing with accusations of political interference. The 26th amendment, approved in 2024, has been previously criticized by PTI and legal circles as an effort to block Judge Shah, the highest judge, for becoming CJP.
In the light of the CJP explanations that are charged, the two judges demanded that their letter also be placed on the website of the Supreme Court to guarantee transparency, promising to release it publicly if it is ignored.
“The challenges for the 26th amendment continue pending, and a golden opportunity to decide them in the first case before the institution as a whole, that is, the complete court as it was, it has been lost, perhaps irremediable.
“This was the most appropriate forum (in terms of composition) to solve the fundamental constitutional problems in a way that not only satisfies the dictates of the law and justice, but also guarantees a judicial decision whose legitimacy could not be questioned,” he regrets the letter.
