Author: admin

IN the summer of 1982, there was talk of a new medical college coming up in Karachi. It was to be Pakistan’s first such institution in the private sector and was being launched by a highly reputed enterprise, the Aga Khan Development Network. An imposing boundary wall along Stadium Road testified to this emerging reality. For prospective medical students like me, this was electrifying news. In those days Pakistan’s medical education landscape was in disarray because of politicised campuses, and the five-year MBBS programme was taking much longer.

Although there had been no official announcement, I made enquiries and came upon the name of a certain Dr Camer Vellani as the project’s central figure. The phone directory listed a number for his clinic, which I dialled one evening with apprehension and anticipation. When Dr Vellani came on the line and took me through the basics of the project, I was hooked. The following year, I was fortunate to be admitted to the Aga Khan University Medical College’s inaugural class, a group of 50 selected from an applicant pool of over 5,000.

The opening week included an orientation by Dr Vellani, who was associate dean. The moment he walked in, the room filled up with his quiet and dignified presence. A slender frame adorned with a scholarly bespectacled bearing, he spoke with a soft but commanding eloquence. After introductory remarks, he scribbled a searching question on the blackboard: “What am I doing here?” — emphasising each word one by one. A fundamental query was thus transformed into several, prodding us to self-reflect. You can judge the impact of that moment from the fact that it has stayed with my classmates and me ever since.

In 1985, when our clinical years began, we encountered Dr Vellani more often. He was founding chairman of the department of medicine and a decorated professor of medicine and cardiology. He taught us how to extract a systematic medical history and conduct an orderly physical examination. I happened to be one of the more excitable students in our class and would try Dr Vellani’s patience from time to time, but he never betrayed any irritation or annoyance. His method was steady gentlemanly persuasion conveyed with calmness and composure.

‘He made us want to be like him.’

Before long, we were all looking up to him not just as a teacher or mentor, but also as a father figure and a role model. We watched with rapt attention while he conducted his outpatient clinics, being unfailingly generous with his time and wisdom to both patients and students alike. We stood mesmerised at the bedside as he elicited challenging physical signs, such as a third or fourth heart sound or an abnormally robust pulsation in the jugular vein. We sat captivated as he elaborated on the biological aspects of heart failure or, his particular favourite, the physics of electrocardiography. The long and short of it is that we outright idolised him.

Our class graduated in 1988 and scattered to pursue advanced specialisation in our chosen fields. I spent a decade in the US and returned in 2000 to join the Aga Khan faculty as assistant professor of neurology. During this time Dr Vellani had served in a series of leadership roles, including a term as rector (equivalent to vice chancellor). He was revered as a medical statesman, combining the qualities of a master clinician, an impactful academic and a seasoned administrator in one inspiring and edifying persona. I went to his office to pay my respects and to apologise for having been rather a boisterous student. Dr Vellani would have none of it. He lau­ghed a soft, gentle lau­gh and said “Saad, you never gave me any tr­­o­uble.” Then, with a tw­­inkle and an affectionate smile he ad­­ded, “Well, perhaps just a little.” I was quickly reminded of the many reasons we had admired and adored him.

For the last few months, the word got out that Dr Vellani was unwell, triggering widespread concern across the institution. Early on the morning of Sept 4, he breathed his last; he was 88. His body may have weakened, but his mind remained sharp. A colleague who was with him in the final hours heard him express gratitude at having been granted a blessed life; perhaps he had a premonition that his time had come. Dr Vellani had exited with the same dignified elegance that had marked him throughout his long and rewarding life, a life of unmatched dedication and exemplary service. He helped and healed generations of sick patients, and motivated and inspired legions of medical students towards clinical excellence. He made us want to be like him. If the most consequential measure of a life is the sum of your good deeds, then Dr Vellani rests most comfortably and the rest of us stand enriched.

The writer is professor of neurology at Aga Khan University.

X: @_saadshafqat

Published in Dawn, September 9th, 2025

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