• Minutes of exchange between CJP and Justices Mansoor Shah, Munib Akhtar revealed
• Top judge says move might affect unity among judges, expose court to public comment
• Insists Article 184 petitions must go to Constitutional Bench, not full court
• SC Rules 2025 published, aim to modernise court procedures
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi ignored a decision made last year by a committee to bring challenges to the 26th Amendment of the Constitution before the full Supreme Court, according to minutes of the communication exchange between CJP and two senior judges of the apex court.
CJP argued that such a move would dampen the much-needed spirit of collegiality among judges, besides exposing the court to public comment, as in the recent past.
The committee, which met on Oct 31, 2024, under the Practice and Procedure Act (PPA) 2023, was convened by senior puisne judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar. In response, CJP Afridi, who chairs the committee, said he did not find it appropriate to call for a full court hearing. He also mentioned receiving the letters from the two senior judges late in the afternoon.
CJP explained that he had been compelled to send the committee’s decision and his response in sealed envelopes to the secretary of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) for safekeeping until the JCP meeting, which was convened on Nov 5, 2024.
In his reply, the CJP expressed his intention to request the JCP to nominate additional judges to join him on the Constitutional Bench. This would enable the committee, as envisaged under Article 191A (3a) of the Constitution, to bring the petitions challenging the 26th Amendment before the full court.
He observed that convening the committee to form benches under PPA or constituting the full court would violate the Constitution’s provisions.
He also asked the JCP Secretary to present his response, along with the letters from the two judges, for due consideration at the upcoming JCP meeting.
CJP Afridi asserted that the constitutional mandate regarding the jurisdiction of any bench to hear petitions under Article 184 of the Constitution was clear. Under Article 191A, petitions filed under Article 184 must be placed before the Constitutional Bench. He further noted that the constitution of benches to hear such petitions is solely within the purview of a three-judge committee of the Constitutional Bench, not the PPA committee.
He recalled how he consulted all 13 judges of the Supreme Court. Nine of them agreed that petitions challenging the 26th Amendment should be placed before the Constitutional Bench, not the full court.
In separate minutes dated May 20, 2025, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah stressed the need for meaningful consultation, which he stated was the core purpose of the PPA. Justice Shah noted that delegating powers to the Supreme Court’s registrar was not covered by the act.
He suggested finding a permanent solution for urgent matters and proposed that the next senior judge should attend committee meetings in the absence of a member, but only if the CJP was unavailable.
The committee discussed Justice Shah’s proposals and agreed with his view on non-delegation of committee powers but differed with the rest of his assertions. The committee directed the registrar to revise the draft and resubmit it.
SC Rules 2025
Meanwhile, the apex court on Thursday formally published the Supreme Court Rules 2025, replacing the Supreme Court Rules 1980.
Framed under Article 191 of the Constitution, the new rules replace outdated provisions and bring court procedures in line with contemporary legal, constitutional and technological developments that have emerged immediately.
To carry out this revision, CJP had formed a committee comprising Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi. The committee engaged with judges, the Pakistan Bar Council, the Supreme Court Bar Association and other bar associations. The final draft was placed before the full court and approved after detailed deliberation.
The Supreme Court Rules 2025 consist of seven parts, 38 orders and six schedules, with around 280 provisions amended (including 160 from the schedules), 60 new provisions added, and five outdated provisions deleted.
Key highlights of the new rules include that all petitions and paper books must be filed electronically, and notices, orders and certified copies will be issued digitally. Pleadings, hearings and affidavits may be conducted via video link, and judicial documents sent by post will no longer be entertained.
The rules update court fees for the first time in decades, with special provisions for criminal petitions, fees for petitions submitted from jail and fee exemptions for habeas corpus and Article 184(3) petitions. Counsel fees have also been increased, and the registrar may appoint advocates at state expense in death penalty cases.
Intra-Court Appeals have been introduced for orders under Article 184(3) and contempt proceedings, with one review petition allowed per judgement. Frivolous reviews will incur penalties, and the security deposit has been increased.
Appeals from interlocutory orders must be heard by a bench of at least two judges. The registrar is empowered to recall ex parte orders and enforce compliance with procedural formats.
The registrar is granted authority to oversee staff and exercise procedural powers, and procedural failures will not invalidate proceedings.
Published in Dawn, August 15th, 2025