ISLAMABAD: Four senior judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have written to Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, urging him to postpone a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan scheduled for February 10 regarding the appointment of judges.
The letter, signed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Athar Minallah, raises concerns over the timing and implications of the appointments.
According to the letter, the 26th Amendment case may require a full court bench, and appointing new judges before resolving this issue could lead to complications. The judges also highlighted irregularities in the transfer of three judges to the Islamabad High Court, stating that under the Constitution, they should have taken a fresh oath. The failure to do so, they argued, casts doubt over their judicial authority, while the seniority list at the high court has already been altered.
The letter further warned that appointing judges under the current circumstances could create the perception of “court packing” and questioned why the judiciary was being put in such a position. It asked whose agenda or interests were being served by this move.
Addressed to the Chairperson of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, the letter titled “Request to Postpone the Appointment of Judges in the Supreme Court of Pakistan” noted that the commission’s meeting had been called to discuss the appointment of eight judges to the Supreme Court. The judges expressed concerns over recent developments and the prevailing situation, compelling them to seek a postponement.
The letter pointed out that the constitutional validity of the 26th Amendment had been challenged by multiple petitioners from various segments of society. Despite a surge in petitions following the amendment’s enactment, they remain pending before the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench.
The judges stressed that these challenges should have been addressed by a full court bench before any judicial appointments were considered. However, the commission’s meeting had been scheduled hastily before the next hearing on the matter.
The letter emphasized that the judiciary’s credibility relies not only on the legal merit of its rulings but also on public trust in its impartiality and independence. It underscored the need to uphold this trust, cautioning against actions that could undermine the judiciary’s integrity.
The letter stated that in the current circumstances, public trust in the judiciary depends on how the petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment are handled. The inclusion of new judges, who are clearly benefiting from this amendment, at this stage would further erode the already “fragile” public confidence in the institution and unnecessarily complicate matters.
According to the letter, if the meeting proceeds with its stated objective, a dilemma will arise. If the Constitutional Bench accepts the petitions and directs the formation of a full court to hear and decide on the challenges to the amendment, a crucial question will emerge—who will be part of the full court?
The letter pointed out that if the proposed eight new judges assume office by then, it would create an extraordinary situation. From one perspective, they would be included in the full court, but their appointment itself would have been made under the very amendment in question. This would reinforce public perceptions of court packing, severely damaging the image of the judiciary’s impartiality and independence—the cornerstone of the country’s highest judicial institution.
Alternatively, if only those judges who were on the bench before the amendment’s enactment are included in the full court, some may argue that such a bench would not truly represent a full court.
The judges questioned in their letter, “Why is the court being placed in such a position? Whose agenda is behind this attempt to undermine the judiciary’s dignity or, regrettably, even make a mockery of it? What interests are being served by putting the court in this predicament?”
They further asked, “Why force the court into a dilemma that can be avoided? Shouldn’t the matter of new judicial appointments be reconsidered and set aside for the time being?”
The senior judges concluded by stating, “We believe these questions answer themselves. The timing and composition of the full court should be carefully considered to maintain the judiciary’s integrity and reputation, which is crucial not only for the highest judicial body but for the entire legal system.”
The letter warned that any full court decision made after the new appointments might fail to gain public confidence. Therefore, under the current circumstances, the only viable and reasonable course of action is to postpone the meeting.