September 8, 2025
By Rana Malhi
ISLAMABAD
A rare fissure opened in the Supreme Court on Monday, September 8, as four senior judges boycotted a full court meeting, and wrote a letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi of reducing the forum to ‘a rubber stamp’ for decisions already taken, and contrary to the spirit of institutional practice.
The letter was signed by Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Ayesha Malik, and Athar Minallah. The judges wrote that on September 3, 2025, they were informed a full court meeting was being convened to discuss amendments to the Supreme Court Rules 2025. However, according to them, the reality is that the rules had already been approved through circulation, and the full court meeting was now being used only for post-facto endorsement.
In their letter, the judges stated that while Article 191 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to frame its own rules, this power belongs to the full court as an institution. Circulation, they said, can only be used for minor or administrative matters, whereas issues as significant as judicial rules cannot be settled through this method. The letter further said that only the full court can decide whether rules should be approved through circulation; the Chief Justice alone does not have that authority.
The judges pointed out that a notification approving the Supreme Court Rules was issued on August 9, 2025. Just three days later, suggestions for amendments were invited, and subsequently, a full court meeting was called to discuss those very suggestions. According to them, this sequence itself confirms that the proper forum for deliberating on the rules is the full court. Yet the rules were first validated and notified, and only afterward was the full court summoned to legitimize those decisions.
The letter stressed that the full court should not be used for appearances but for genuine consultation and consensus. At present, they wrote, the full court meeting appears to be a mere formality, which undermines the constitutional and institutional process. They argued that exercising collective authority through a single individual or a committee damages the credibility of the institution and weakens institutional harmony within the judiciary.
The four judges also expressed concern that if the practice of approving rules by circulation and then seeking only symbolic approval from the full court takes root, it will negatively affect the institutional structure of the judiciary. They noted that transparency in the judiciary is essential, and public trust is its foundation. No constitutional body, they said, can function effectively without transparency.
In conclusion, the judges stated that until the correct and constitutional procedure is followed, they see no reason to attend the full court meeting. They requested that their objections be made part of the minutes of the meeting, and that those minutes be made public, so people may know how judicial rules were approved without direct deliberation by the judges themselves.
The judges emphasized that transparency in full court meetings is indispensable, and that to maintain public trust, all decisions within the institution must be taken clearly and with consensus. In their view, reducing the full court to a mere formality would harm the independence and credibility of the judiciary.