Category: 1. Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi to publicly respond to his six questions regarding the “pressing institutional concerns”.

Justice Shah wrote in his letter that his correspondence was made in his capacity as the most senior judge which must not be mistaken for a personal grievance.

“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.”

The Supreme Court senior judge complained that he had earlier sent multiple letters but received no written or verbal response.

He urged the CJP to answer his question publicly at the upcoming judicial conference scheduled for September 8, as on that day, a new judicial year will commence and the said forum will review the reforms undertaken under the top jurist’s leadership besides laying down priority areas for the coming year.

The queries raised by Justice Mansoor include:

• Why has the PaPA Committee never been convened to carry out its statutory responsibilities?
  PaPA [Practice and Procedure Act] Committee is mandated by the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, to constitute benches to delibrate on all causes, matters, petitions, appeals, or reviews, other than those within the domain of the Constitutional Benches under Article 191 A(3).
• Why was the historic revision of the 1980 Rules approved by circulation rather than after discussion and deliberation in a Full Court Meeting?
• Why was the policy on releasing dissenting opinions adopted by soliciting individual opinions of the Judges (a process unheard of) rather than an open deliberation in a Full Court Meeting?
• Why was a General Standing Order on leave issued that subjects Judges to controls inconsistent with judicial independence and the Presidential Order of 1997?
• Why have the petitions challenging the 26th Amendment not been fixed before the original Full Court?
• Most fundamentally, are you nurturing independence among Judges, or enforcing compliance to turn this Court into a regimented force rather than a constitutional court of free and equal Judges?

ISLAMABAD:

Supreme Court’s senior puisne judge, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, has written a letter to Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, urging him to publicly respond to a series of pressing institutional questions at the upcoming judicial conference on September 8, 2025.

The letter, titled “Pressing Institutional Concerns”, spans seven pages, raised serious concerns about transparency, judicial independence, collegiality, and the internal functioning of the apex court.

Justice Mansoor emphasizes that the issues he highlights are not personal grievances, but stem from a “deep commitment to the judicial work” and the integrity of the institution. “As the senior-most Judge of this Court after yourself, I write this letter with reluctance, but in discharge of an unavoidable institutional duty,” wrote Justice Mansoor.

Justice Mansoor listed six specific questions for Chief Justice Afridi to answer publicly at the judicial conference, focusing on the unconvening of the PAPA Committee, the revision of the 1980 Rules without a full court debate, the issuance of the General Standing Order on leave, the failure to fix petitions challenging the 26th Amendment before the original full court, and the overall independence of the judiciary.

Among the core issues, Justice Mansoor highlighted that judicial rosters and bench formations have been issued unilaterally, bypassing mandatory consultation.

Justice Mansoor pointed out that his repeated letters and written communications to the Chief Justice on the issues had gone unanswered, adding, “Such silence from the Chief Justice to the senior-most Judge of the Court is not merely discourteous; it undermines the collegial traditions of this Court.”

He also criticized the recent revision of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, stating that it was passed through circulation rather than a full court meeting—an act he deemed a “lack of collegiality and preference for unilateral authority.”

Justice Mansoor took issue with the policy of soliciting dissenting opinions via written communication, calling it a “tick-box exercise” that deprived the Court of rich deliberation. He further condemned the General Standing Order (GSO) on Leave issued in July 2025, which classifies judges as “whole-time” functionaries of the state.

“Judges are not regimented officers; their independence is constitutionally entrenched,” he stated.

He termed the GSO’s requirements—such as disclosing a judge’s residential address and limiting leave categories—as “surveillance” that undermines the dignity and independence of the judiciary.

Perhaps the most serious charge comes in the section on the legitimacy of the Court itself, where Justice Mansoor questioned why petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment—which affect the very independence of the judiciary—have remained unheard for nearly a year.

“True leadership lies not in managing compliance but in ensuring that the Court rises above suspicion as the fearless guardian of the Constitution,” he wrote.

The letter marks one of the most open and institutional confrontations in the recent history of Pakistan’s Supreme Court. Its tone, content, and the call for public accountability reflect growing discontent within the judiciary over the centralization of administrative powers under the Chief Justice.

Justice Mansoor ended the letter by urging the Chief Justice to use the judicial conference as “a moment of institutional renewal,” and to reaffirm “the principles of collegiality and constitutional fidelity.”

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s eastern Punjab province on Friday decided to launch a satellite-aided survey to quantify damage from ongoing floods before beginning rehabilitation and compensation for families who lost homes and farmlands.

Punjab, home to about half of Pakistan’s 240 million people and most of its wheat and rice output, has been hit hardest by this year’s monsoon. According to provincial officials, 49 people have died in the current Ravi-Sutlej-Chenab flood spell, while the province’s seasonal death toll since mid-June has reached 183.

Nationwide, flooding and rain-related incidents have killed 884 people since June 26, according to the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA). The authorities warned earlier in the day of new flood peaks on the Chenab and Indus rivers and possible urban flooding in Sindh as the monsoon continues to batter Punjab and threaten millions downstream.

The province’s relief commissioner, Nabeel Javed, presided over a meeting at the Provincial Disaster Management Authority (PDMA) head office to plan the rehabilitation of flood-affected people.

“The survey will cover submerged area, crop losses and a monetary estimate,” he was quoted in a statement circulated after the meeting that brought together officials from the agriculture, irrigation and revenue departments.

“The list of affected areas will be prepared using SUPARCO satellite data,” he said, referring to Pakistan’s space agency.

PDMA has circulated proformas to standardize loss reporting and directed all districts to submit assessments immediately, he added.

“Full financial assistance will be provided to those affected,” Javed said, pledging a transparent, streamlined delivery of aid under the chief minister’s instructions.

Earlier, he also said roughly 3.9 million people have been affected and about 3,900 villages inundated.

Authorities have moved more than 1.8 million residents to safer locations in Punjab and set up 415 relief camps and 466 medical camps across the province.

Another 398 veterinary camps have been established, with 1.3 million animals shifted to higher ground.

Punjab PDMA Director General Irfan Ali Kathia said the civil administration, army and other agencies are on alert and instructed officials to prioritize protection of life and property.

The military said its teams are conducting extensive rescue and relief operations in southern Punjab, including farming districts such as Sahiwal, Khanewal, Muzaffargarh, Toba Tek Singh and Chiniot.

At least 30 relief camps were established in Sahiwal after floods swamped 49 villages along the Ravi.

“Army rescue teams are actively engaged in Talamba, Mian Channu and Abdul Hakeem in Khanewal district, relocating thousands of people and livestock to safety,” the army said, adding that troops have evacuated residents from low-lying localities in Muzaffargarh where floodwaters breached protective structures.

NEW FLOOD WARNINGS, FOOD SECURITY

The Flood Forecasting Division (FFD) reported an “exceptionally high flood” in the Sutlej at Ganda Singh Wala, and “very high” levels at the Ravi (Balloki, Sidhnai) and Chenab (Chiniot).

It said the Sutlej would likely remain at exceptionally high levels at Ganda Singh Wala.

At Panjnad and Trimmu headworks, major barrage points in southern Punjab, the Chenab also remained in the “high” category.

PDMA warned the Chenab at Panjnad was expected to reach “high to very high” within 24 hours, while flash flooding was likely in the hill torrents of DG Khan and Rajanpur from Sept. 7-9.

The Indus at Guddu could also rise to “high to very high” from Sept. 7-8, and authorities cautioned of possible urban flooding in major Sindh cities, including Karachi and Hyderabad, in the same period.

Earlier on Friday, the High Commission of India in Islamabad informed Pakistan of “high flood” levels in the Sutlej at Harike and Ferozepur headworks, according to the Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters, warning that excess releases could worsen conditions downstream at Ganda Singh Wala and beyond.

Separately, the Punjab Home Department imposed Section 144 to temporarily bar feed mills from using wheat for 30 days so supplies can be diverted to flour mills for human consumption.

Officials said feed mills hold over 104,000 metric tons of wheat originally intended for poultry feed, a step aimed at ensuring uninterrupted flour supplies as about 1.3 million acres of cropland remain inundated. Hydrological reports show Pakistan’s Tarbela Dam has reached 100 percent of its capacity, while Mangla stands at 87 percent. On the Indian side, Bhakra (84 percent), Pong (98 percent) and Thein (92 percent) dams — all major reservoirs on the Sutlej and Ravi rivers — are also nearly full.

Officials warned that further inflows could aggravate downstream flooding if controlled releases become necessary.

Supreme Court Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has written a letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi asking him to publicly answer six questions regarding “pressing institutional concerns”, it emerged on Friday.

In a letter dated Thursday, seen by Dawn.com, Justice Shah said he was reluctantly writing it in “discharge of an unavoidable institutional duty”, adding that what compelled him was “your (CJP’s) persistent and complete indifference”.

The judge wrote that his “repeated letters and written communications to you (CJP) on the undermentioned issues have gone unanswered and undiscussed; not once have I received a reply-neither in writing nor verbally”, adding that such silence from the chief justice to the senior puisne judge was “not merely discourteous; it undermines the collegial traditions of this court and violates the institutional courtesy without which a constitutional court cannot function”.

Justice Shah said that with the new judicial year commencing from Monday, CJP Afridi had convened a judicial conference to review the reforms undertaken under his leadership and to lay down priority areas for the coming year.

“It is therefore both timely and opportune that the institutional concerns I raise in this letter be addressed squarely by you in that forum. By doing so, you will not only respond to the questions that remain unanswered but also reassure the judges of this court, the bar and the public we serve that your vision of reform is grounded in collegiality, transparency, and fidelity to the Constitution.”

The questions the judge asked the CJP to answer were:

• Why has the Practice and Procedure Act Committee never been convened
  to carry out its statutory responsibilities?
• Why was the revision of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 approved by circulation rather than after discussion and deliberation in a Full Court meeting?
• Why was the policy on releasing dissenting opinions adopted by soliciting individual opinions of the judges — saying it was a process “unheard of” — rather than an open deliberation in a Full Court meeting?
• Why was a General Standing Order (GSO) on leave issued that subjects judges to controls inconsistent with judicial independence and the Presidential Order of 1997?
• Why have the petitions challenging the 26th Amendment not been fixed before the original Full Court?
• If CJP Afridi was nurturing independence among judges or “enforcing compliance to turn this court into a regimented force rather than a constitutional court of free and equal judges?”

Justice Shah said the letter must not be construed as a “personal grievance”.

“The concerns I now raise do not come from indolence or neglect, but from a judge who has consistently and conscientiously performed his duty. They are, therefore, institutional concerns borne of experience and responsibility rather than personal complaint,” he explained.

Justice Shah said that he trusted CJP Afridi to use the judicial conference as a “moment of institutional renewal by answering these questions and reaffirming the principles of collegiality and constitutional fidelity”.

Justice Shah said the questions were those that struck at the “heart of independence” and not only the apex court judges, but also the nation, were looking towards CJP Afridi “not for silence but for clarity”.

Concerns about PaPA Committee

Elaborating on his questions, Justice Shah said the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, was enacted by the apex court to put an end to the “one-man show” in the formation of benches.

He pointed out that it required that all causes, matters, petitions, appeals or reviews be placed before benches constituted by a committee under the act, adding that its purpose was “clear”: to review pending cases, devise a transparent case-management plan, categorise cases intelligently and allocate them to benches through collective deliberation.

“Yet, since your assumption of office in October 2024, not a single official meeting of the PaPA Committee has been convened. Bench formation and cause lists are being issued unilaterally, without any committee deliberation. Rosters are circulated for signatures, expecting members to endorse them blindly without discussion of case allocation or categorisation. As a senior member of the committee, I have had no opportunity to participate in its work as mandated by law.

“This is a direct violation of the act and raises serious concerns. Why are junior judges regularly assigned to three-member benches while senior judges are confined to two-member benches? Why are matters of national importance with far-reaching policy implications not fixed before senior benches? The pattern suggests that independent judges are being sidelined, not for reasons of efficiency, but for reasons of control.”

Justice Shah said that minutes of five “committee meetings” displayed on the court’s website could not “cure this defect”, arguing that “they were not committee meetings within the meaning of the act but mere discussions about the chief justice’s travel schedule. Even then, their minutes were uploaded in violation of a binding majority decision of the committee. I had recorded my dissent on that occasion, arguing for transparency, but it was disregarded. This is symptomatic of a mindset averse to collegiality and inclined towards dictation.”

The judge rued that “the genie of the ‘one-man show’, which Parliament sought to bury through legislation, has been released once again”, adding that that was the reason why he had ceased signing the rosters circulated without any meeting.

“By sidelining the committee and withholding even basic information (such as the number of cases to be dealt with or those fixed before larger benches), you have reduced a statutory mechanism of collective decision-making into a façade.

“The result is evident: despite the increase in the number of judges, the court’s pendency remains at 57,455 cases. The very purpose of enhancing the court’s strength — reducing backlog — stands defeated. The unavoidable inference is that enlargement of the court was less about addressing pendency and more about altering its internal balance, thereby diluting the independence and standing of existing judges.”

Revision of court rules

Regarding the revision of the apex court’s rules, Justice Shah said they were a constitutional document that governed the institution’s functioning and their first revision in four decades was an event of “historic significance”.

He argued that such a process required a Full Court meeting on the administrative side. “Instead, you chose to approve the draft rules by circulation — a process suited to routine matters, not to reshaping the court’s constitutional framework.

“By avoiding deliberation, you deprived the court of collective wisdom and diminished judicial dialogue. This course reflects a lack of collegiality and a preference for unilateral authority.”

Policy on dissenting opinions

Regarding dissenting opinions, Justice Shah said the court’s recent policy on releasing them with the majority judgment was approved through a unique process of soliciting the views of individual judges by the registrar.

He said there was no “legal or institutional basis for individual opinion-gathering on such critical matters”, unless specifically authorised by the Full Court, and even then, only for matters that were procedural or minor in nature.

Justice Shah said the above exercise could not be treated as a substitute for Full Court deliberation, nor could responses to this letter be used to formulate policy in isolation.

“A matter of jurisprudential weight was reduced to a secretive tick-box exercise and the court was denied the richness of open deliberation.

“A Full Court meeting is not merely a procedural formality — it is the bedrock of judicial collegiality. It allows all judges of this court to come together, to deliberate, to exchange ideas and, through open dialogue, to persuade or be persuaded. In such a forum, a judge may revise or refine their view after hearing their colleagues, or may help develop a collective wisdom that is far more robust than isolated responses. This essential element of judicial democracy is entirely lost when opinions are sought in writing and in silos.”

General Standing Order on leave

Justice Shah said that the GSO dated July 29, 2025, was the “first time” in the court’s history that something had dictated that judges were “whole-time” at the state’s disposal, adding that this was language “wholly alien” to a constitutional court.

“Judges are not regimented officers; their independence is constitutionally entrenched.”

The judge said the GSO had confined foreign leaves to five categories, but this was a restriction not envisaged in Presidential Order No. 2 of 1997.

“In principle, leave can, if at all, only possibly be considered for refusal where: (i) a part-heard case cannot be adjourned; (ii) urgent administrative duty demands presence; or (iii) a judge is negligent in work and seeks leave to evade it. Yet, in practice, leave is being denied even when none of these circumstances exist-apparently to enforce compliance and control, and to prevent independent judges from speaking at international forums. Such arbitrary denials betray a deep institutional insecurity.”

Justice Shah further railed that the newly introduced requirement under the GSO that a judge must disclose his residential address and contact details was “alien” to the practice of constitutional courts worldwide.

“It borrows from the ethos of civil-service bureaucracy and attempts to transplant it into the judiciary, with deeply corrosive consequences. A judge of this court is not a supervised functionary of the state but a constitutional actor whose independence is both decisional and personal. To compel disclosure of a judge’s private residence is not administration — it is surveillance. It reduces the dignity of the office to that of a monitored employee and cloaks an instrument of control in the garb of procedure.

“No constitutional court of repute — the US Supreme Court, the UK Supreme Court, or the Constitutional Court of South Africa — has ever imposed such a condition. You may not realise it, but by imposing it here, you are striking at the very independence of this court. A judiciary under watch ceases to be a judiciary; it becomes an extension of bureaucracy. Kindly note that no apex court of repute across jurisdictions mandates such disclosure, precisely because the ethos of independence demands institutional courtesy, not surveillance.”

The senior puisne judge pointed out that the GSO had been “weaponised to create a judicial ‘exit control list’”.

He noted that leave was no longer a matter of “respect and consultation but of bureaucratic obstruction”, adding that it was an “authoritarian impulse that undermines judicial independence”.

The judge further pointed out that “disturbingly, these rigid policies bear the imprint of the civil bureaucracy. The registrar — a retired civil servant — appears to be driving an agenda alien to the ethos of a constitutional court. Judges are not governed by the logic of command and control but by independence and collegiality. Judges are not mere agents of government; they are guardians of the people’s liberties.”

Supreme Court’s legitimacy

Lastly, Justice Shah said the apex court and CJP Afridi’s legitimacy “hangs in the balance” in the pending petitions challenging the 26th Amendment.

He pointed out that the petitions remained unheard for nearly a year, though they concerned the Supreme Court’s independence.

“They must be heard by the original Full Court, excluding judges elevated after the amendment. Until then, any initiative under your leadership remains institutionally fragile, for its foundation is constitutionally suspect. True leadership lies not in managing compliance but in ensuring that the court rises above suspicion as the fearless guardian of the Constitution,” the senior puisne judge concluded.

Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has called for a united national response to the devastating floods in Punjab. He urged the federal and provincial governments to rise above political differences and prioritise relief efforts.

During a visit to flood-affected areas in Kasur on Friday, Bilawal stressed that the scale of the disaster demands joint action, saying no single provincial government can tackle the crisis alone.

“This is not a time for political point-scoring. Natural disasters demand national unity. We must all come together to help our people rebuild their lives,” he said.

Read More: Chenab, Sutlej flooding push provincial death toll to 68

Acknowledging the efforts of Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz, the PPP chairman praised her dedication during the emergency and called on the federal government to play a lead role in providing aid and infrastructure support.

“CM Maryam is working hard in difficult circumstances, and that must be recognised. But the federal government must also play its part, just as it did during previous floods,” he said.

Bilawal appealed for the declaration of an agricultural emergency in Punjab, pointing to extensive crop losses and widespread damage to the province’s rural economy.

He also urged Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to extend subsidies through the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) and provide relief to the farmers in the form of seed, fertiliser, and electricity bill support.

“Punjab’s agricultural sector is in crisis. Farmers need immediate help with inputs and loan relief. We cannot afford to damage the backbone of our economy,” he added.

The PPP chairman criticised the Indian government for failing to uphold the Indus Waters Treaty, besides releasing excessive water exacerbating the flooding in Pakistan.

“India’s refusal to share timely water data is a violation of international law and a threat to millions of lives. This is not just a breach of the Indus Waters Treaty — it is an attack on the Indus river system itself. This is water terrorism,” he said.

Also Read: Punjab cuts off feed mills’ wheat supply

He added that Pakistan would raise the matter at international forums and expressed confidence that India would eventually be compelled to either honour the treaty or return Pakistan’s rightful share of the rivers.

Bilawal said his party stands ready to assist in both the relief and rehabilitation phases, and has instructed PPP members to fully support the Punjab government’s efforts.

“We built two million houses in Sindh with federal support after the floods. With unity and commitment, we can do the same for Punjab,” he concluded.

Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman has cancelled his planned political rallies in Mardan and Dir, citing the worsening flood situation across Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Speaking to media in Dera Ismail Khan, Fazl voiced concern over what he termed a deepening governance crisis in the province. “Those expected to pull the region out of crises are themselves trapped in them,” he remarked.

He said the rallies were meant to raise awareness about the critical situation, but had to be called off due to flooding. However, he confirmed that the Mufti Mehmood Conference will be held in Dera Ismail Khan on October 16.

The JUI-F chief assured that his party would stand by the people during difficult times. “We don’t seek confrontation, but the public deserves to know the truth. There is no sign of governance in KP — lawlessness and corruption are at their peak,” he said.

Fazl also held the state responsible for the deteriorating security in Swat and Bajaur, saying peace was the state’s duty. He warned that militants had become so strong they were directly challenging state institutions.

“People are being forced to migrate from Swat, Waziristan, and Bajaur. Although institutions are making efforts, they are not enough,” he added, reaffirming JUI-F’s commitment to upholding Islam and addressing public issues.