Court Reporter, Daily Dawn, Dawn TV Report
Islamabad: Supreme Court Peon Judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has written a letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, in which he has requested him to answer 6 questions in public regarding ‘important institutional concerns’.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said in the letter that he is writing this letter despite not wanting to do so, to fulfill an ‘unavoidable institutional duty’, and the reason that is forcing him is the ‘continuous and complete disregard’ of the Chief Justice of Pakistan.
He wrote that his repeated letters and written messages were not responded to or discussed, “Not once did I receive a written or verbal response,” he added, adding that the Chief Justice’s silence towards the Peon judge was “not merely indecent but also undermines the court’s mutual traditions and violates the institutional etiquette, without which a constitutional court cannot function.”
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that on the occasion of the beginning of the new judicial year, the Chief Justice has called a judicial conference to review the reforms undertaken under his leadership and set priorities for the coming year.
He wrote, “It is also timely and appropriate that you address the institutional concerns I am raising in this letter directly in this forum, thus not only answering the questions that remain unanswered but also assuring the judges, lawyers and the public of this court that your reform thinking is based on cooperation, transparency and loyalty to the Constitution.”
Questions asked by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah:
Why was the Practice and Procedure Act Committee never convened to discharge its statutory responsibilities?
Why was the amendment to the Supreme Court Rules 1980 passed through circulation instead of discussion in a full court meeting?
Why was the policy of issuing dissenting opinions adopted by taking individual opinions of judges instead of discussion in a full court meeting, when this process is ‘incomprehensible’?
Why was a general standing order issued regarding leave, which imposes controls on judges that are contrary to judicial independence and the 1997 Presidential Order?
Why were the petitions challenging the 26th Amendment not scheduled before the original full bench?
Is the Chief Justice fostering independence among judges or is he ‘imposing compliance’ and turning this court into a ‘regulating force’ instead of a constitutional court of independent and equal judges?
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said his letter should not be considered a ‘personal complaint’.
He explained that ‘the concerns I am raising now do not come from laziness or negligence but from a judge who has always discharged his duty honestly, these are not personal grievances but institutional concerns arising from experience and responsibility.’
He said he was confident that the Chief Justice would make the Judicial Conference an opportunity for ‘institutional renewal’, answer these questions and reaffirm the principles of cooperation and loyalty to the Constitution.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that these questions touch the ‘heart of the independence of the judiciary’ and not only the judges of the Supreme Court but the entire nation is waiting for ‘clarification, not silence’ from the Chief Justice.
The Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023 was aimed at ending the ‘one-man show’ in the constitution of benches, under which all cases, petitions, appeals and review committees were to be placed before benches constituted by the Supreme Court.
The purpose was clear: to review the pending cases, make a transparent case management plan, categorize cases and distribute them through collective consultation.
He said that since the Chief Justice assumed office in October 2024, not a single formal meeting of the Practice and Procedure Committee has been convened, and the constitution of benches and lists of cases are being issued unilaterally.
As Mansoor Ali Shah wrote, the rosters are sent for signature, and the members are expected to sign them indiscriminately without discussion. As a senior member of this committee, I have not had any opportunity to participate in its work as per the law.
He said, ‘This is a direct violation of the Act and raises serious concerns. Why are junior judges repeatedly placed in three-member benches while senior judges are restricted to two-member benches? Why are matters of national importance not assigned before senior benches? This practice shows that independent judges are being sidelined for control, not performance.’
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that five proceedings of ‘committee meetings’ have been uploaded on the Supreme Court website, but they were not committee meetings as per the law, but were only discussions on the Chief Justice’s travel schedule.
He said that despite this, the minutes of the committee were uploaded in violation of a majority decision of the committee.
He said that ‘I had filed my dissenting note on this occasion, arguing in favor of transparency, but it was ignored; this is a sign of a mind that is reluctant to consult others and inclined to dictate.’
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah added that ‘the ‘one-man show’ that Parliament tried to bury through the law has been released again’, and that is why he refused to sign the rosters sent without any meeting.
Leave a Reply