ISLAMABAD – Four judges of the Supreme Court expressed serious reservations about procedure followed for review and approval of the Supreme Court Rules 2025, citing concerns over legality and transparency.
In letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi, Justices Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Ayesha Malik, and Athar Minallah criticized convening of a full court meeting as a mere formality, arguing that the rules had already been unilaterally approved and published in the official Gazette on August 9, 2025. The judges did not attend the meeting held later in the day.
The letter questioned legitimacy of approving rules by circulation, emphasizing that Article 191 of the Constitution grants Supreme Court collective authority to regulate its own procedures. The judges argued that circulation is intended for minor procedural matters and cannot replace full court deliberation for fundamental rules governing the court.
The judges highlighted procedural inconsistencies in the meeting’s agenda, including invocation of Rule 1(R) on the removal of difficulties, which they said was unnecessary and appeared intended only to justify the prior unilateral process. They warned that proceeding under the current approach would reduce the full court’s role to a symbolic one, undermining its constitutional authority.
The four judges recommended that the rules be presented in their entirety to the full court for proper discussion and approval, and called for transparency in the process, including recording objections in the meeting minutes and making them public.
Supreme Court Rules 2025 were drafted by a committee formed in March by CJP Afridi to review the 1980 rules and improve efficiency, transparency, and overall judicial effectiveness. Despite opposition from some judges and members of the legal community, the CJP convened the full court meeting and reconstituted the committee to address implementation difficulties.
According to a Supreme Court press release, the full court discussed various provisions and agreed that the rules should remain a “living document,” subject to ongoing review and amendment. Implementation of amendments relating to court fees and securities was postponed, with further suggestions to be considered by the committee before submission to the full court.
CJP Afridi termed meeting as milestone reflecting the judiciary’s commitment to strengthening institutional frameworks and ensuring that the Supreme Court Rules remain responsive to contemporary needs.
