Mudassir Rizwan
As Pakistan embarks on a new judicial year, the Supreme Court finds itself confronted with unprecedented internal dissent and urgent demands for reform. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, one of the most senior puisne judges, has addressed a candid letter to Chief Justice Yahya Afridi that lays bare severe reservations about the conduct and direction of the country’s highest court. His concerns strike at the very heart of judicial independence, collegiality, and fidelity to the Constitution.
In his communication, Justice Shah has raised six critical questions that question both the leadership and the procedural direction of the apex court. Why, he asks, has the statutory Practice and Procedure Act Committee not been convened to fulfill its mandate? Why were dissenting opinions — essential to judicial transparency — termed “unheard of”? And perhaps most controversially, he queries whether the Chief Justice is turning the Supreme Court into a regimented force rather than a true constitutional court of free and equal judges. These pointed queries are not routine disagreements; they reflect fundamental concerns about the erosion of judicial freedom.
Justice Shah’s intervention comes at a moment when the judiciary is already under the public microscope. Just recently, two senior judges of the Islamabad High Court issued their own damning critique of judicial practices, highlighting what they termed as “judicial ills.” Their letter underscored how fundamental rights, guaranteed under the Constitution, are being neglected amid political interference and executive pressure. Taken together, these developments reveal a judiciary struggling to maintain credibility, integrity, and independence in an increasingly polarized political environment.
The most pressing issue remains the treatment of petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. Justice Shah has demanded that such cases be heard by a full court bench, and crucially, without the participation of judges elevated under the contested amendment. This demand reflects a broader concern: that the court must not be perceived as complicit in validating controversial political deals. Only full transparency and institutional accountability can restore public faith.
The judiciary’s crisis today cannot be divorced from its long history of accommodation and resistance to executive power. From the infamous doctrine of necessity to recent decisions mired in political controversy, Pakistan’s courts have often appeared as battlegrounds for political maneuvering rather than sanctuaries of constitutional fidelity. Judicial review — the core function of the courts — has been steadily undermined, leaving citizens without effective protection from arbitrary state power. The situation today is not merely institutional friction; it represents a constitutional crisis in real time.
Justice Shah’s letter is therefore not an act of rebellion but a clarion call for course correction. It insists that reforms must be anchored in collegiality, transparency, and fidelity to the Constitution. Collegiality ensures that judges, regardless of seniority, can exercise their voices without fear of repression. Transparency demands that dissenting opinions and procedural debates be placed before the public. Fidelity to the Constitution requires that judicial authority be exercised solely to uphold fundamental rights and the democratic order. Without these principles, the Supreme Court risks losing its legitimacy as the guardian of constitutionalism.
The fact that these concerns are being raised publicly, and at the dawn of the judicial year, underscores their urgency. The judiciary can no longer afford closed-door management of discontent. Reform must be embraced openly, with clear commitments to independence and accountability. The Chief Justice has a historic opportunity: he can either engage these questions constructively and set the court on a path of reform, or dismiss them and deepen the fractures already visible within the judiciary.
Republic Policy WhatsApp Channel
At stake is not only the unity of the bench but the very credibility of Pakistan’s justice system. A judiciary beholden to politics or silenced by internal regimentation cannot defend constitutional rights. As Justice Shah and his colleagues have emphasized, the public must see that the Supreme Court stands as a beacon of independence and accountability. It is time for Pakistan’s judiciary to embrace reform, not resist it — for only then can it reclaim its rightful role as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution.
