ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court senior puisne judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah has stressed for nomination of all apex court judges in the Constitutional Bench instead of selective inclusion.
Justice Mansoor wrote a letter to the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) secretary on June 16 before the commission’s meeting scheduled for June 19. The JCP on June 19 had extended the tenure of Justice Aminuddin Khan for another term of six months as head of the Constitutional Bench till 30th of November, 2025.
“My office verbally informed you on June 12, 2025, that I will not be available in Pakistan’ to attend the meeting, I therefore wish to formally record the following submissions which may be incorporated in the minutes of the meeting, as I will not be able to attend the meeting even online,” the senior judge wrote.
He stressed that all the Supreme Court judges must be nominated to the Constitutional Bench, adding that any selective inclusion without a transparent process or identifiable criteria is patently discriminatory and damaging to institutional harmony.
The senior puisne judge intimated that one would have reasonably expected that due to non-availability of one of its members, the meeting would be deferred-particularly in keeping with past practice, where meetings have been deferred due to the unavailability of members representing the Executive.
Additionally, Justice Mansoor said that the meeting falls in the summer vacations announced by the court. “However, it appears that the meeting is continuing as scheduled perhaps due to the judiciary’s minority position in the Commission,” he wrote.
Referring to Agenda Item No 1 of the JCP June 19 meeting, Justice Mansoor stressed that the commission must wait till the constitutionality of the 26th Constitutional Amendment is decided by this court before addressing matters that flow directly from it.
The senior judge was of the view that proceeding with extensions or re-appointments to a Constitutional Bench whose very legal foundation is under serious constitutional challenge further deepens the institutional crisis and weakens the court’s legitimacy.
Similarly, he said that the commission must realise that continued delay in adjudicating this foundational issue is visibly eroding the credibility of the court and shaking public confidence in its neutrality.
“It is both surprising and regrettable that rather than first addressing the legitimacy of the 26th Amendment, the commission is rather insensitively prioritising the matter of judicial extensions an act which, in substance, continues the disputed scheme introduced by that very amendment,” Justice Mansoor wrote.
He further said that it is imperative that the court’s image is not allowed to drift under the control or convenience of the Executive, which now appears to wield disproportionate influence over the affairs of the JCP.
“Without prejudice to the above, and pending adjudication of the constitutional challenges, all judges of the Supreme Court must be nominated to the Constitutional Bench in the interim,” Justice Mansoor wrote.
The senior judge stressed that formal criteria must be developed for selection of judges to the Constitutional Bench before any further constitution or expansion of the Bench. “The absence of objective standards renders past nominations vulnerable to the charge of cherry-picking,” he wrote, adding that this ad hocism has already cast a long shadow on the legitimacy of the Constitutional Bench, and continued exclusion of senior judges without reason only worsens that perception.
Referring to Agenda Item No 2 of JCP meeting regarding policy decision about framing of Rules under Article 175A(20) of the Constitution, Justice Mansoor emphasised that any policy decision must wait till the constitutionality of the 26th Amendment challenged in a series of pending petitions before this Court is decided.
He urged that these concerns be taken with the seriousness they merit, adding that the strength of the judiciary rests on its credibility, its internal coherence, and its fidelity to constitutional principle, not on expediency or executive preference. “If the commission is to retain its institutional legitimacy, it must lead with integrity, transparency and collective wisdom,” the senior puisne judge concluded.
