The Justice Shah letter has sparked debate in Pakistan’s judiciary as Supreme Court Justice Mansoor Ali Shah called on Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi to publicly answer six critical questions. In a detailed communication, he pressed the top judge to address what he described as “pressing institutional concerns” that strike at the core of judicial independence.
A Reluctant But Urgent Letter
Justice Shah explained that he wrote the letter reluctantly but felt compelled to act in the interest of institutional duty. He said his repeated letters to the chief justice had gone unanswered, creating an atmosphere that undermines collegial traditions of the Supreme Court.
He reminded the CJP that silence in response to legitimate concerns is not only discourteous but also damaging to the constitutional court’s collective function.
Call for Transparency at Judicial Conference
The judge linked his questions to the upcoming judicial conference, where CJP Afridi plans to highlight reforms and set new priorities. Justice Shah argued that the moment was “both timely and opportune” for the chief justice to provide clarity.
By answering publicly, he said, the CJP could reassure fellow judges, the legal community, and the wider public that his vision of reform rests on transparency, collegiality, and fidelity to the Constitution.
The Six Questions
Justice Shah’s letter outlined six direct questions:
Why has the Practice and Procedure Act Committee not met to fulfill its legal duties?
Why were the Supreme Court Rules 1980 revised by circulation instead of a Full Court discussion?
Why was the policy on dissenting opinions adopted through individual consultations rather than collective deliberation?
Why was a General Standing Order on leave introduced that limits judicial independence?
Why have petitions challenging the 26th Amendment not been placed before the original Full Court?
Is the CJP nurturing independence or enforcing compliance to turn the court into a regimented force?
Concerns Over PaPA Committee
Justice Shah strongly criticized the lack of meetings under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act of 2023. He reminded the CJP that the law was passed to end the “one-man show” in bench formation.
Since CJP Afridi took office in October 2024, he said, no official meeting of the committee had been held. Instead, rosters were circulated for signatures without meaningful discussion. Justice Shah argued that this bypasses collective decision-making and sidelines senior judges.
He noted that despite an increase in the number of judges, the case backlog remains over 57,000, proving that the expansion was not reducing pendency but altering internal dynamics.
Revision of Court Rules
Justice Shah described the first revision of the Supreme Court Rules in four decades as a matter of historic importance. Yet, instead of calling a Full Court meeting, the rules were approved by circulation.
He said this deprived the court of collective wisdom and reduced judicial dialogue, undermining the principle of collegiality.
Read: Pakistan Braces for New Flood Peaks as Punjab Drowns
Handling of Dissenting Opinions
On the issue of dissenting opinions, Justice Shah questioned why the policy was approved by soliciting individual responses from judges. He stressed that such a process is “unheard of” in constitutional courts, where deliberation and open debate are essential.
He emphasized that Full Court meetings are not procedural formalities but vital forums for building judicial consensus. Replacing them with written responses, he warned, strips the court of collective reasoning.
General Standing Order on Leave
Justice Shah also criticized the General Standing Order on leave issued in July 2025. He said it portrayed judges as “whole-time” employees of the state, a concept alien to a constitutional court.
He argued that restricting judges’ leave and requiring disclosure of personal addresses and contact details amounted to surveillance, not administration. Such policies, he said, echoed bureaucratic practices and eroded judicial independence.
He further claimed that the GSO was being weaponized to block judges from attending international forums, thereby stifling independent voices.
26th Amendment Cases
Turning to the 26th Amendment, Justice Shah expressed concern that related petitions had not been heard for nearly a year. These cases, he said, were central to the independence of the Supreme Court and must be fixed before the original Full Court.
Until then, he warned, any reform under the CJP’s leadership remains fragile and constitutionally suspect.
A Broader Warning
Justice Shah underscored that his letter was not a personal grievance but an institutional plea. He said the concerns arose from his experience and commitment to duty, not from neglect or indolence.
He urged CJP Afridi to use the judicial conference as a moment of renewal. By answering publicly, the chief justice could restore confidence in the court as a guardian of the Constitution.
Independence at Stake
Justice Shah concluded by warning that the court’s legitimacy depends on its ability to protect independence. He said the public looks to the Supreme Court “not for silence but for clarity.”
If the chief justice fails to address these pressing concerns, he cautioned, the judiciary risks becoming an instrument of control rather than a bastion of freedom.
Follow us on Instagram, YouTube, Facebook,, X and TikTok for latest updates
