Four SC judges urge CJP to halt new judges appointments in apex court
- By Raja Mohsin Ijaz -
- Feb 07, 2025
ISLAMABAD: Four Supreme Court judges penned a letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, asking him to halt new appointments to the court until the decision on the 26th Amendment case is made, ARY News reported.
The judges, including Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Athar Minallah, expressed concerns that new appointments could create ‘controversy and undermine the court’s legitimacy’.
The judges argued that the appointment of new judges could be perceived as “court packing” and may impact the outcome of the 26th Amendment case. They also pointed out that the Islamabad High Court’s seniority list has been altered without the judges taking oath, which is a ‘mandatory’ requirement.
The judges also requested that the Judicial Commission’s meeting scheduled for February 10 be postponed and that the appointment of new judges be delayed until the decision on the 26th Amendment case is made. They also questioned why the court is being put in this situation and whose agenda is being served by rushing the appointment process.
Read More: Three SC Judges write letter to CJP and Constitutional Bench’s head
Earlier in January 2025, three Supreme Court judges wroten letter to Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and Constitutional Bench’s head Justice Aminuddin Khan over not fixing the benches powers case before the court.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Ayisha Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi have referred the benches’ powers case in the letter and complained that the case was not fixed on January 20 and called it the contempt of the court.
“Justice Aqeel Abbasi was added to the bench on January 16, who had heard the case earlier in the Sindh High Court,” letter read.
In the judges’ letter, January 17 session of the Practice and Procedure Committee also referred. Justice Shah informed the committee that his point of view has already been on the record. He refused to attend the committee’s meeting adding that he is not required to appear in the committee.
“The committee could have reconstituted the earlier bench and fixed the hearing on January 20,” according to the letter. “The case not fixing in the court, has been equal to non-compliance of the judicial order”. “The law has been violated with this non-compliance, and it is contempt of the court,” according to the letter.