In yet another letter highlighting the rift within the judiciary, four Supreme Court (SC) judges expressed their reservations on Monday regarding the process being adopted for the review and approval of Supreme Court Rules 2025.
They dubbed the full court meeting, called for this purpose today, a mere “stamp of approval” for the rules, which they said were already decided and unilaterally approved.
The letter addressed to Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, was sent by senior puisne judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Athar Minallah.
They pointed out that “if the full court was not deemed necessary for the adoption of the rules themselves, how can it now be summoned to deliberate upon their amendment?”
Calling into question the legality of the rules themselves, the Judges noted that the “present Supreme Court Rules were never placed before, nor approved by, the Full Court.”
The letter went on to say that any rules established “without deliberation and approval of the Full Court” can not acquire “binding legal status”.
The letter highlighted that while the powers vested by Article 191 stipulate that SC has the power to make rules regulating its practice and procedure, the said power is to be “exercised collectively by the Court as an institution.”
“This omission is not merely procedural but goes to the very root of legality,” the Judges stressed in their letter.
According to the Judges, the current rules suffer from “both substantive and procedural illegality,” as they questioned the method used for the approval of the said rules, stating that the rules were processed through circulation.
“Circulation is 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,” the Judges pointed out.
The Judges noted that unless a full court had approved to use the method, “the Chief Justice alone could not unilaterally resort to it.”
More to follow