Top judges axed from key SC committees

The conflict among senior Supreme Court judges has intensified as four justices who opposed the elevation of high court judges to the apex court have been removed from key administrative committees under Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi’s restructuring plan.CJP Afridi has reconstituted several committees, replacing senior justices with junior ones. Those excluded from critical roles include Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi.Reports indicate that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has been removed from his advisory role at the Federal Judicial Academy (FJA), a position he had held for the past year.Justice Munib Akhtar and Justice Ayesha Malik have been excluded from the Law Clerkship Program Committee, which will now be led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, with Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb as the other member.Similarly, Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi has been removed from the SC Building Committee, while Justice Athar Minallah has lost his position on the Supreme Court’s Archive and Museum Committee.Additionally, Justice Irfan Saadat Khan has not been included in any of the newly reconstituted committees.It was widely expected that the conflict among Supreme Court judges would subside during Chief Justice Afridi’s tenure, but that did not happen.Legal experts believe that had CJP Afridi constituted a full court to hear petitions against the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the situation might have played out differently.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 government succeeded in appointing a majority of its preferred judges to the constitutional bench, which subsequently delayed hearing the petitions against the amendment. Rather than awaiting the final decision on the 26th Amendment, CJP Afridi proceeded with JCP meetings to consider high court judicial appointments.During his first 100 days tenure, 36 judges were appointed in the high courts and seven were elevated to the apex court.During his first 100 days in office, 36 judges were appointed to the high courts, and seven were elevated to the Supreme Court. However, CJP Afridi acknowledged the government’s influence in the appointment process, raising serious concerns about the integrity and competence of several newly appointed judges.Justice Shah had urged the JCP to establish rules for nominating judges to the constitutional bench, but his suggestion was not entertained.Moreover, when a three-member bench led by Justice Shah questioned the jurisdiction of a regular bench in a tax case, the matter was withdrawn from his bench by a committee led by Justice Afridi.The move has sparked an ongoing debate over whether the committee had the authority to override a judicial order.Tensions further escalated when members of the constitutional bench expressed visible frustration with the regular bench, led by Justice Shah, for holding that four senior SC judges could face contempt proceedings.When CJP Afridi convened a JCP meeting to consider eight new Supreme Court appointments, four SC judges opposed the move, insisting that the pending application for a full court hearing on the 26th Amendment should be decided first.Defending the new appointments, CJP Afridi remarked that “corporate judges” were not fulfilling their responsibilities – a pointed reference to Justice Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar.On February 10, both Justice Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar boycotted the JCP meeting on SC appointments. Subsequently, they were removed from key administrative committees.Some lawyers view the standoff as a clash between beneficiaries and aggrieved judges of the 26th Amendment.