Four SC judges skip full court meeting, question approval of rules through circulation

ISLAMABAD: Four Supreme Court judges have written a letter to Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, voicing concerns over the approval of Supreme Court Rules 2025 through circulation instead of consultation.

The four judges also skipped the full court meeting.

The letter, written by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice  Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Athar Minallah, said that the Supreme Court Rules 2025 were notified without collective consultation.

The judges questioned that if full court approval was not deemed necessary earlier, why was a full court meeting has been called for amendments?

They said that calling a full court meeting after approving rules through circulation was akin to “dressing up an illegality in legality.”

The judges demanded that their letter be made part of the minutes of the full court meeting and published, saying the public has the right to know how the court’s internal affairs are being run.

Copies of the two-page letter written to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, have also been sent to all Supreme Court judges and the Registrar.

Supreme Court hikes case fees by up to 4,900 per cent

The judges wrote that public trust is the true foundation of the judiciary, and only by bringing deliberations before the people can that trust be strengthened.

They noted contradictions in the working paper, which on one hand spoke of implementation through a committee while on the other said the rules had already been notified.

The Chief Justice had informed judges on August 12 that the rules were approved through circulation and published in the Gazette on August 9, yet further amendment proposals were invited and a full court meeting was called, the letter said.

The judges argued that while the legal fraternity’s initial input was given to the committee, it was never considered. The rules were neither placed before the full court nor approved by it.

Supreme Court resumes judicial work as new year begins tomorrow, roster issued

They stressed that only the full court can approve rules collectively, and rules notified without its approval are illegal.

Circulation, they said, is reserved for minor administrative matters, not for constitutional frameworks. The chief justice, therefore, could not have approved the rules through circulation.

They termed the present rules “illegal both substantively and procedurally,” adding that the reference to Rule 1(4) in the agenda was unnecessary and intended only to justify a unilateral act.

Calling the full court meeting “not only surprising but convened for the wrong purpose,” the judges said rules were notified on August 9, and only three days later suggestions for amendments were sought.

Including the full court belatedly, they said, was merely an attempt to give legal cover to an otherwise unlawful step.

“If full court approval was not necessary for the original rules, how can it be necessary for amendments?” they asked.

They argued that the full court was being reduced to a mere rubber-stamp body, which was unconstitutional. The only correct path, the judges said, was to place the complete rules before the full court for approval after open debate.

They declared that the ongoing meeting was contradictory in itself and should be abandoned, saying participation in such a meeting would be meaningless since it sought to amend rules they already deemed illegal.

They reiterated their demand that their objections be recorded in the proceedings and the minutes made public, as the people have a right to know how the rules were notified without consultation and how an unlawful action was later sought to be legitimised.

The judges emphasised that the minutes of full court meetings should be made public, as transparency is the foundation of the legitimacy of constitutional institutions.

They reiterated that public trust is the judiciary’s true basis and can only be strengthened by bringing deliberations before the people.