Supreme Court Judges Split Over 26th Amendment Hearing, Reveals CJP's Letter

From left to right: Justice Munib Akhtar, Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, and Justice Mansoor Ali Shah. — Supreme Court website

 

A Rare Glimpse Into Judicial Disagreement

A recently disclosed letter from Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, paired with detailed minutes of judges' committee meetings, has revealed deep divisions within the Supreme Court over how to hear petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

Background of the Dispute

The documents, covering meetings from October 31, 2024, to May 29, 2025, outline a pivotal moment when tensions escalated. On October 31, 2024, Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar convened a judges’ committee meeting in the CJP’s absence. In this meeting, they decided to set the case for a full court hearing on November 4, 2024—triggering a formal dispute within the court.

CJP Afridi’s Standpoint

In his letter, CJP Afridi firmly objected to this move, stating that under the Constitution, petitions under Article 184(3) must be heard by a constitutional bench, not a full court. He noted that after personally consulting all 13 Supreme Court judges, nine supported his position, two preferred a full court, and the remaining judges offered varied opinions. The majority view, he argued, left no justification for altering the case format.

Concerns Over Judicial Unity

Despite repeated calls from Justices Mansoor and Munib for a full court hearing, CJP Afridi assigned the matter to a constitutional bench. He maintained that convening a full court was unnecessary, risked undermining judicial harmony, and could invite public criticism of the judiciary’s internal workings. Preserving collegiality among judges, he stressed, was vital for sustaining public confidence in the institution.

Constitutional and Legal Justifications

In his written reply to Justice Mansoor’s earlier letter, CJP Afridi cited several constitutional provisions, including Article 191A and its subsections, to reinforce his stance. He also referenced the 2023 Committees of Judges Act, which gives the constitutional committee of judges exclusive authority to decide case fixation matters.

Late Submissions and Further Proceedings

The minutes also record that two sealed letters from other judges—both advocating for a full court—were submitted later in the day. CJP Afridi placed these, along with his sealed responses, in the custody of the Judicial Commission’s secretary for review during its November 5, 2024, meeting.

Broader Implications

This disclosure provides a rare public window into disagreements at Pakistan’s highest judicial level. It highlights not only differing interpretations of constitutional procedure but also a larger debate over judicial governance, transparency, and the delicate balance between unity and open deliberation within the Supreme Court.