ISLAMABAD (WEBDISK) A major development has surfaced in Pakistan’s judicial circles as Senior Supreme Court Judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has written a strongly-worded letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, raising six critical questions just days before the Judicial Conference on September 8.
Justice Shah emphasized that his letter was not personal but a matter of institutional integrity, urging the CJP to respond publicly in order to restore public and judicial confidence.
Justice Shah’s Key Questions to the CJP
In his letter, Justice Shah highlighted several concerns about judicial reforms, case management, and transparency in the Supreme Court:
- Formation of Benches – Why are benches being constituted unilaterally without consultation, sidelining senior judges while junior judges are given prominence?
- Cause Lists & Rosters – Why are cause lists issued and rosters sent for signatures without proper discussions?
- Practice and Procedure Committee – Why has this crucial body not been convened for institutional reforms?
- Supreme Court Rules – Why are rules being approved through circulation rather than through a full court session?
- Dissent Note Policies – Why are such policies being altered through individual consultations instead of institutional consensus?
- Vacation Orders & National Cases – Why were general orders issued for judges’ vacations, and why were matters of national importance, like the 26th Constitutional Amendment petitions, not referred to a full court bench?
Concerns Over Judicial Backlog
Justice Shah noted that pending cases have surged to 57,000, arguing that the appointment of additional judges seemed aimed at managing internal balance of power rather than addressing the massive backlog.
He added that the constitutional role of the Chief Justice’s office itself had come into question after the 26th Amendment, raising alarms about institutional credibility.
Not a Personal Grievance, But Institutional Duty
Justice Shah reminded the CJP that during his tenure he had disposed of 3,956 cases and authored 35 reported judgments, stressing that his concerns were based on duty, not personal grievance.
