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.<\/p>\n
They dubbed the full court meeting, which was called for this purpose today, a mere \u201cstamp of approval\u201d for the rules, which they said were already decided and unilaterally approved.<\/p>\n
The letter addressed to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) 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. The four judges also skipped the full court meeting held later today.<\/p>\n
They pointed out that \u201cif 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?\u201d<\/p>\n
The judges said the working paper for the meeting\u2019s agenda stated that under Rule 1(4) of the Supreme Court Rules 2025, the CJP may \u201cremove any difficulty in giving effect to the said rules\u201d on the recommendations of a committee that was constituted by him and had already been formed.<\/p>\n
Moreover, \u201cthe chief justice, through a letter dated August 12, 2025, informed the judges that the rules had already been approved through circulation and duly notified in the Gazette on August 9, 2025,\u201d the judges highlighted.<\/p>\n
Yet, they further stated, the CJP had sought suggestions \u201cfor further amendments\u201d to the rules.<\/p>\n
Calling into question the legality of the rules themselves, the judges noted that the \u201cpresent Supreme Court rules were never placed before, nor approved by, the full court.\u201d<\/p>\n
Citing Article 191 of the Constitution, they said the SC had the \u201cpower to make rules regulating its practice and procedure, but this power is exercised collectively by the court as an institution\u201d.<\/p>\n
The judges concluded that any rules established \u201cwithout deliberation and approval of the full court\u201d lacked its approval and could not acquire \u201cbinding legal status\u201d.<\/p>\n
They were of the opinion that the rules, in their present form, \u201csuffer from both substantive and procedural illegality\u201d. In this connection, they expressed reservations that rules were processed through circulation.<\/p>\n
\u201cCirculation 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\u2019s governance.<\/p>\n
\u201cUnless the full court had itself had expressly resolved to adopt circulation for this purpose, the chief justice alone could not unilaterally resort to it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Further highlighting confusion around the matter, the judges said that the working paper for the meeting invoked \u201cRule 1(R) regarding removal of difficulties\u201d during the process, despite there being no need to invoke the provision.<\/p>\n
The judges deliberated that the provision was invoked only \u201cto defend or justify the unilateral process already undertaken\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cInstead of clarifying the legitimacy of the rules, this only exposes their infirmity: if no difficulty exists, why place such a point before the full court?\u201d they asked.<\/p>\n
The four SC judges termed the purpose behind the move \u201cpuzzling and fallacious\u201d. The judges, in their letter, questioned why a full court was convened if the rules had already been notified as \u201capproved\u201d on August 9.<\/p>\n
Within three days, on August 12, CJP \u201csought suggestions for amendment [to] the same rules\u201d, the judges said.<\/p>\n
They went on to add that \u201cthis sequence tacitly acknowledges that the full court is the correct forum for such deliberation,\u201d but noted that it was only undertaken after the \u201cfait accompli of unilateral approval\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis amounts to putting the cart before the horse-first declaring the Rules valid, and then calling the full court merely to consider patchwork amendments,\u201d they added.<\/p>\n
On that note, the judges regretted that the \u201cmeeting is being used to give a veneer of legitimacy to an otherwise invalid process,\u201d and aimed to reduce the role of a full court to only \u201ccosmetic\u201d.<\/p>\n
The forum was being used to ratify \u201cwhat has already been done rather than discharging its true constitutional function under Article 191,\u201d the judges claimed.<\/p>\n
The judges recommended that the constitutional course of action would have been to \u201cplace the rules in their entirety, before the full court, permit genuine discussion and deliberation, and only thereafter seek formal approval.\u201d<\/p>\n
Calling for the abandonment of the meeting, the judges said that it was \u201cdesigned to merely serve as a stamp of approval\u201d and to proceed with it would be equal to reducing the \u201cfull court to an afterthought \u2014 convened not for decision-making but for damage control.\u201d<\/p>\n
The judges noted that such a move \u201cundermines the collective authority of this court\u201d.<\/p>\n
Citing the above reservations, the four judges refused to attend the full court, unless a constitutional course of action is adopted, stating that, \u201cwe see no point in attending a meeting that is premised on amending rules which, in our respectful view, already suffer from illegality both in substance and in process.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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, which was called for this purpose today, a mere \u201cstamp of approval\u201d for the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11865,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11864","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-court-and-crime"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11864","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11864"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11864\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11866,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11864\/revisions\/11866"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/11865"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyyoung.pk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}