ISLAMABAD: The divide among judges is widening by the day as four senior judges stayed away from the 156th full court conclave — convened by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi to approve the Supreme Court Rules, 2025 — and wrote a letter objecting to the ‘cosmetic role’ of the Monday exercise.
As the scheduled meeting of the full court commenced, senior puisne judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha A. Malik and Justice Athar Minallah informed CJP Afridi through a letter that there was no point in attending the meeting.
“The convening of the full court at this stage is not only puzzling but also fallacious,” they wrote.
Soon after the full court meeting, the SC issued a statement about the meeting, but it did not make any mention of the letter or the absence of the four senior judges while naming all the other judges who were in attendance.
The full court meeting was called by the CJP with a single-point agenda of according an approval to the new rules, which substitute the 1980 rules.
In letter to CJP, Justices Shah, Akhtar, Malik and Minallah say people must know how rules governing apex court could be ‘notified without discussion’
In their letter, the four judges highlighted that the CJP had on Aug 12 informed the SC judges that the rules had already been approved by circulation and duly notified in the gazette on Aug 9 and yet sought suggestions for further amendments to the rules, which were to be placed before the full court meeting.
By seeking its views only after notifying the rules, the exercise reduces the full court to a cosmetic role, a forum for ratifying what had already been done rather than discharging its true function under Article 191 of the Constitution, the judges noted.
“In effect, the meeting is being used to give a veneer of legitimacy to an otherwise invalid process,” the letter pointed out.
According to them, the constitutionally consistent and institutionally honest course would be to place the rules, in their entirety, before the full court, permit genuine discussion and deliberation, and only thereafter seek formal approval.
The deficiencies identified in this letter cannot be remedied by the expedient of convening a meeting that is designed merely to serve as a stamp of approval for the existing position. Such a meeting is, in fact, a contradiction in terms and ought therefore to be abandoned.
To proceed otherwise is to reduce the full court to an afterthought, convened not for decision-making but for damage control, the letter said. “It is a fallacious purpose, one that undermines the collective authority of this court,” it added.
The judges claimed that they did not see any point in attending a meeting that was premised on amending rules which, according to their opinion, had already suffered from illegality both in substance and in process. They said the working paper also recorded that some initial input had been received from the legal community, which was yet to be considered by the committee. “At the outset, we must reiterate the objection we have consistently raised that the present rules were never placed before, nor approved by, the full court in the first instance,” they emphasised.
“This omission is not merely procedural but goes to the very root of legality as Article 191 of the Constitution vests the Supreme Court with the power to make rules regulating its practice and procedure, but this power is exercised collectively by the court as an institution,” the letter stated. It added that the rules framed without prior deliberations and approval of the full court lacked the imprimatur of the court itself and could not acquire binding legal status.
The judges said what compounded this infirmity was the method adopted for “approval”.
The rules were processed through circulation, an administrative convenience to deal with routine or minor procedural matters; it is not, and cannot be, the vehicle for laying down the constitutional architecture of this court’s governance.
Unless the full court itself had expressly resolved to adopt circulation for this purpose, the CJP alone could not unilaterally resort to it, the judges argued.
The judges demanded that their “objections be fully recorded in the minutes of the meeting and that the minutes of the full court be made public”.
People are entitled to know how rules governing the internal life of the court came to be notified without discussion or deliberation amongst its judges, and how a post-facto meeting was being used to cloak that process in a semblance of legitimacy, they remarked.
Full court proceedings
At the outset of the full court meeting, the CJP welcomed the participants and commended the efforts of the committee constituted to review the SC Rules, 1980 and appreciated the four-judge committee’s exhaustive work, undertaken with input from judges and the legal fraternity, resulting in a comprehensive draft of the rules.
Justice Shahid Waheed, chairman of the committee, briefed the full court on the rules and after detailed deliberations, the full court agreed that the new rules were a “living document”, and would be subject to review and amendment as required from time to time.
After considering different aspects and deliberating upon some of the critical provisions, the full court decided to postpone the implementation of amendments to the extent of enhancement of court fees and securities for the time being. The committee will consider the suggestions from judges, the bar representatives or other stakeholders in this regard for placement before the full court for a decision in light of recommendations.
The CJP termed this development a significant milestone, reflecting the judiciary’s commitment to strengthening institutional frameworks and ensuring that the rules remain dynamic, responsive, and in line with contemporary needs.
Published in Dawn, September 9th, 2025