Latest news with #CJPAfridi
Express Tribune
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CJ explains why he didn't form full court
Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi speaks at a conference at the Federal Judicial Academy in Islamabad on July 25, 2025. SCREENGRAB Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi has justified his action to not constitute a full court to hear petitions challenging the 26th Amendment in November last year. The dispute began on October 31 last year, when Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, being members of the committee, formally addressed a letter to CJP Afridi, urging him to hold a meeting under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023. The two senior justices requested the meeting specifically to address the petitions contesting the 26th Amendment, which involves changes to judicial authority and tenure. With no response from the CJP, Justices Shah and Akhtar held an independent meeting in Justice Akhtar's chambers to determine the next steps. Following this private session, the two justices decided by majority vote to fix the petitions against 26th Amendment before a full court on November 4 last year. Despite their decision, no cause was issued. As minutes of committee meeting has been issued on the SC website, CJP Afridi's note is also attached wherein he gave justification for not constituting the full court. The CJP said that the constitutional mandate vesting jurisdiction to any bench in the Supreme Court to hear a petition under Article 184 of the Constitution is but very clear. The CJP had personally sought the opinion of all 13 judges of the Supreme Court, with nine favouring a constitutional bench over a full court for hearing challenges to the amendment. The disclosure came as part of the CJP's detailed communication addressing the concerns of justices Shah and Akhtar regarding the bench composition for a key constitutional matter. The CJP stressed that the decision reflected the collective preference of the court's majority and that he had acted in good faith to preserve institutional harmony. Freshly disclosed minutes of judges' committee meetings covering the period from October 31, 2024, to May 29, 2025, provide a rare glimpse into the apex court's inner sanctum, laying bare a paper trail of legal hair-splitting, procedural manoeuvring and judicial diplomacy surrounding one of the most politically charged amendments in the country's recent memory. According to the disclosures, the chief justice informed Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar of the majority view, cautioning that convening a full court could undermine collegiality among judges and expose the court to public criticism, as had happened in the recent past. The paper trail begins with an October 31, 2024 meeting in Justice Munib Akhtar's chambers, where Justices Munib Akhtar and Mansoor Ali Shah proposed listing the case before the full court on November 4. They acted on the perception that the chief justice was not convening a judges' committee meeting on the matter. Later, in a November 5, 2024 letter, CJP Afridi cited Article 191A and sub-clause 4 to stress that only the judges' constitutional committee could fix such cases for hearing, and that petitions under Article 184(3) must go to a constitutional bench, not a full court. He disclosed that he had privately canvassed the views of all 13 judges and nine agreed with his position, and these findings were shared with the two 'brother judges' advocating otherwise. Warning that convening a full court in this instance could fray the spirit of essential collegiality and invite public criticism, as had occurred in the recent past. Later that afternoon, the CJP's office received letters from the two judges, sealed and delivered to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) secretary for safekeeping until the commission's November 5 meeting. At the meeting, the CJP proposed that the commission, excluding himself, nominate members of the constitutional bench to hear the petitions, in line with Article 191A(3)(a). November 26, 2024: committee vote In a regular judges' committee meeting chaired by CJP Afridi and attended by Justice Shah and constitutional bench head Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Shah again proposed convening a full court. The majority, Afridi and Khan, decided that the CB would hear the case. January 17, 2025: tax case controversy At a subsequent committee meeting, Justice Shah was absent but had earlier submitted his views on a tax-related constitutional interpretation case, suggesting it could be heard by a regular bench instead of a constitutional bench. The CJP noted that the tax case had originally been set for January 27 before a regular bench, but a conflicting order scheduled it for January 16. By a 21 majority, the committee decided to transfer the case to a CB and ruled that all cases involving constitutional questions must go to the CB unless a regular bench had already issued an order. January 24, 2025: midnight roster dispute Later, Justice Shah's letter, also made public, describes his objection to being informed at 9:33 pm, via his secretary, that a six-member larger bench, headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, had been formed to hear an intra-court appeal. Shah says he had earlier agreed in an informal meeting to a five-member bench of senior judges, excluding any with conflicts of interest. According to Shah, the CJP had suggested a four-member bench, but later that night, at 9:30 p.m. via WhatsApp, he was asked to approve a six-member bench. He objected, noting that two of its members — Justices Mandokhail and Muhammad Ali Mazhar — were part of the constitutional bench and therefore should not hear the case. Shah added that the case file was never provided to him. May 20, 2025: delegation of powers debate In a three-member committee meeting, Justice Shah argued that powers under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, could not be delegated to the registrar, as the Act contained no such provision. He suggested replacing the word "quorum" with "majority" and filling vacancies with the next most senior judge.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Business
- Express Tribune
CJP-Aurangzeb huddle stirs the pot
Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb is interviewed during the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors' Meeting at the IMF and World Bank's 2024 annual Spring Meetings in Washington. PHOTO: REUTERS In a rare turn of events, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi and Federal Minister for Finance and Revenue Senator Muhammad Aurangzeb have met face-to-face, stirring debate in legal circles about the propriety of such an engagement. The meeting between the judiciary's top office and the government's economic helm underscored the need for "coordinated efforts" between the judiciary and the executive to uphold the rule of law and safeguard citizens' rights. The unusual interaction, held without the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan present, was accompanied by an official photograph and press release, a move many lawyers believe was "uncalled for" and fraught with optics that blur the fine line between the judiciary and the executive. The meeting underscored the importance of coordinated efforts between the judiciary and the executive in upholding the rule of law and safeguarding citizens' fundamental rights. Some insiders point out that CJP Afridi and Aurangzeb are also former college fellows, stressing that the meeting should be viewed in that light. Nonetheless, for many lawyers, such engagements are "against judicial norms", particularly when the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), which operates under the finance ministry, is one of the largest litigants before the Supreme Court. FBR disputes in spotlight Meanwhile, concerns are already high over the functioning of Alternate Dispute Resolution Committees (ADRCs) — bodies working under the FBR's administrative control to resolve tax-related matters, especially those involving state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Just last month, a bench headed by CJP Afridi ordered a stay on proceedings in all cases pending before ADRCs. The court also flagged concerns over how ADRC members were appointed, directing the FBR to seek input from all stakeholders before finalising the appointment framework. The matter will be heard again on September 8. One lawyer representing an SOE argued that the ADRC mechanism had proven "destructive" for such enterprises. "They are being crushed with taxation and have no remedy against the ADRC," he said, alleging that billions of rupees in taxes had been forcibly recovered in June, without legally required notices, to meet revenue targets. "All profit-making SOEs are being destroyed," he added, while another counsel argued that the ADRCs must operate independently and free from FBR influence to have credibility. Judicial independence worries Since the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, legal experts have expressed unease over what they see as growing executive dominance over the judiciary. Even tax lawyers complain that higher courts were offering little relief to individuals aggrieved by FBR orders. The Sindh High Court, for instance, has reportedly delivered hundreds of judgments in the FBR's favour. At the SC, judges with expertise in revenue law are often not assigned to such matters. Against this backdrop, the optics of the CJP meeting the finance minister have unsettled some lawyers, who fear it may send the wrong signal to business stakeholders whose cases are awaiting adjudication in the apex court. They argue that the country's top judge should avoid creating any perception that the judiciary and executive are "on the same page" when it comes to revenue collection. However, it is also pertinent to mention that CJP Afridi has shown a willingness to engage across the political spectrum. In recent weeks, he has also met with PTI leader Omar Ayub and Barrister Gohar.
Express Tribune
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Justice Mansoor seeks JCP meeting details
Listen to article Supreme Court Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah has urged the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to share the minutes of all its meetings during tenure of Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi. In a letter written on June 25 to the JCP secretary, Justice Shah raised concern for not sharing the minutes of the JCP meetings to the public. "I raise an issue of institutional concern: the commission's discontinuation of the practice of releasing the minutes of its meetings to the public," says the letter. Justice Shah believes that the judiciary, as a trend-setter for other state institutions, must hold itself to the highest standards of openness and public accountability. "The appointment of judges is a public act with far-reaching consequences. The people of Pakistan have a right to know how the judges of the top court in the country are selected, what deliberations take place, and whether constitutional standards are applied in good faith. "The opacity that now surrounds the Commission's workings is not healthy, not democratic, and not consistent with the Supreme Court's image as the guardian of constitutional values," says the letter. He; therefore, urges the commission that the minutes of all JCP meetings held during the tenure of the current chairperson (CJP Afridi) be released to the public, in accordance with past practice. Abdul Moiz Jaferii advocate said that the central premise of the newly instituted processes related to the judiciary was that the method and process of judicial appointments be made more transparent. A basic feature of this transparency was the releasing of minutes which let the people see the process of determination. This has now ceased. Without reason, he adds. After the passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the executive has dominancy in the process of judges appointment as well as selection of judges for the constitutional benches. There is no explanation as why the senior judges were not nominated for constitutional benches in Supreme Court as well as Sindh High Court. There is no explanation as to why dissenting judges are being sidelined by the commission. Recently, the JCP ignored the appointment of senior most judges for their appointment as chief justices of the high court. A lawyer says that they were just ignored because they were not government's like-minded' judges. Similarly, with valid reason, some senior judges, especially Peshawar High Court Judge Ejaz Anwar, were not nominated for the appointment of SC judge. There is no explanation as how the JCP altered its opinion about a judge whose integrity was under question one year ago. It is also witnessed that majority of the government-backed lawyers are appointed as judges of the high courts during the tenure of CJP Afridi. The lawyers whose integrity and competency are beyond doubt were not nominated for appointments as they were not the government's like-minded' CJP Afridi so far could not evolve a strategy to minimise the influence of executive in the appointment of judges. Around 50 judges are appointed in high courts as well as Supreme Court after passage of 26th constitutional amendment. During the tenure of ex-CJP Qazi Faez Isa, minutes of committee working under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act was being shared on the Supreme Court website. However, this practice has been discontinued during ex CJP Yahya Afridi tenure.
Express Tribune
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SC accelerates death penalty case disposals
While the performance of constitutional benches at the Supreme Court remains underwhelming, the top court under Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi has achieved unprecedented acceleration in disposing of criminal cases, particularly those involving death sentences. According to the SC statement, 238 death sentence appeals have been decided during CJP Afridi's tenure. When he assumed office, 59,435 cases were pending in the apex court, which then comprised 16 permanent and two ad hoc judges. As of May 20, the number of working judges has risen to 25, and the case pendency has been reduced to 56,715. Since October 28, 2024, the court has disposed of 238 death sentence appeals, over 52% of the 454 total cases. At the start of Afridi's tenure, 410 death sentence appeals were pending. With 44 new appeals instituted since then, the number rose to 454, but rapid fixation and disposal have brought it down to 216. By comparison, only 26 such appeals were resolved during the corresponding period a year earlier. The SC statement credits this turnaround to the CJP's strategic focus on long-pending cases and the extension of working hours to hear them. Three dedicated benches were constituted and worked on over several consecutive weeks. The first bench, headed by Justice Athar Minallah and comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, is learnt to have decided 125 appeals in April alone. The second bench was led by Justice Muhammad Hashim Kakar, with Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. The third bench, chaired by Justice Naeem Afghan, included Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Aamer Farooq. "The judges comprising these benches convened prolonged sittings, frequently extending beyond normal court working hours. The unwavering commitment of Hon'ble Judges has culminated in the huge disposal of all death appeals instituted up to 2024. The Court will now proceed as next phase to the cases of life-imprisonment appeals, preferential hearing such cases where the convict has already served two-thirds of the sentence—an approach designed to afford prompt relief to deserving appellants while reinforcing public confidence in the even-handed administration of criminal justice." The apex court acknowledged the cooperation of counsel, prosecutors, prison officials and families. "Their patience and professionalism resulted in this progress. Their combined commitment demonstrates that, with focused and collaborative resolve, the justice system can translate in commendable output," the statement said. Report on CBs demanded However, lawyers argue that it is essential to release a performance report on the constitutional benches (CBs), functioning after the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The judges serving on these CBs have yet to evolve any rules or procedures for their operation. Notably, even a CB judge, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, has raised concerns about the absence of regulations. At the same time, the superior judiciary under CJP Afridi is confronting what many call its most significant challenge: executive influence over the nomination of CB judges and judicial appointments. Although CJP Afridi has prioritised the reduction of case pendency, he has so far been unable to devise a strategy to counter the executive's role in appointments. According to some legal observers, around 90% of judicial appointments are currently backed by executive authorities. Commenting on the performance of SC judges, Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii noted: "These are great numbers. But the only number that counts is the majority of the executive in the judicial commission.' 'It is with this number that the meaning of justice has been reduced in our country. There is no independent judicial organ. The challenge to this usurpation of a pillar of the state remains pending. Until the question of the sanctity of the constitution is settled, these numbers are meaningless." As for the performance of the constitutional bench, he added, 'As far as the constitutional bench is concerned, the less said the better'. 'We were told they were assembled to give us efficient and competent adjudication. After six months of doing almost nothing, we have only the military courts decision being overturned as proof of their mastery. Even that decision comes without any details yet afforded.' 'We are on our way to reviewing the reserved seats case without asking why the petitioner seeking review has decided not to implement it. With a bench which lacks the author judge and is headed by the author of a dissenting opinion which the majority had censured,' he added. 'When the lawyers of today tell their stories tomorrow, the period in which the 26th amendment was in vogue and these constitutional benches were functioning will be remembered as little more than a bad joke." Lawyers stress that the time has come for SC judges to unite in defence of judicial independence, instead of prioritising personal objectives.
Express Tribune
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Cold war costs Justice Mansoor KSA trip
A cold war in the highest judiciary seems to have further deepened as Senior Puisne Judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah could not fly to Saudi Arabia for attending two events at the arbitration for want of ex- Pakistan leave. It is learnt that Justice Shah was invited to deliver key notes at two events at the Arbitration week in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia organised by the Al Baraka Forum and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation- Arbitration Center (OIC-AC). During the week, Justice Shah also wanted to perform Umrah before the start of the holy month of Ramazan. The senior puisne judge had made a request to Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi for ex-Pakistan leave well in time, which remained unanswered, compelling Justice Mansoor to cancel his trip to Saudi Arabia as his leaves could not be sanctioned. It is to be noted that Justice Shah was the only Supreme Court judge from a Muslim country invited to the event sponsored by the Saudis in 'Arbitration Week' in Riyadh which is a high profile event. Lawyers believe that Arbitration is most significant for Pakistan, and Justice Shah's presence in Riyadh would have helped build cooperation amongst the judiciaries of the Muslim countries. This could have led to developing a joint arbitration centre for Muslim countries and an international arbitration centre in Pakistan. They are also wondering as why the minutes of committee working under Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023 are not being shared on SC website. The practice was stopped since the incumbent CJP assumed his office. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah is also member of three members committee. Earlier, four justices, who opposed the elevation of high court judges to the apex court, have been removed from key administrative committees under CJP Yahya Afridi's restructuring plan. CJP Afridi reconstituted several committees, replacing senior justices with junior ones. Those excluded from critical roles included Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi. Had CJP Afridi constituted a full court to hear petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the situation might have been differently, said the legal experts. Two judges, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, who formed the majority in the relevant committee, had ordered the constitution of a full court to hear the petitions in the first week of November. However, instead of listing the case, CJP Afridi convened a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to select judges for the constitutional bench. The constitutional bench has yet to decide petitions against 26th constitutional amendment. Subsequently, a three-judge bench led by Justice Shah had raised question if the regular bench could be barred to adjudicate the matters related to the interpretation of law and Constitution after 26th Constitutional Amendment. However the case was withdrawn from that regular bench by the committees. A division bench of the apex court led by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah held that the members of both committees violated the judicial order and withdrew the case from regular bench. The bench remarked that committees' members have committed the contempt; therefore, the full court should be constituted to initiate the proceedings. However, the members of constitutional bench were visibly upset and they set aside the regular bench's judicial orders. Recently, the federal government also filed intra court appeals against regular bench orders in contempt matter. It is being witnessed that dissenting judges faced always tough times since ex-CJP Saqib Nisar's tenure. Lawyers believe that if the clash among senior SC judges continues, the superior judiciary will be further weakened and the situation will be favourable for the beneficiaries of 26th Constitutional Amendment.
