A long-simmering dispute among Supreme Court justices emerged publicly in a recent ruling, marking a notable event in legal circles.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah addressed concerns in a 70-page decision regarding reserved seats, responding to dissenting opinions by Justice Ameenudin Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan. Justice Shah expressed regret over their remarks, which he found unbecoming of the Supreme Court’s stature.
He highlighted their objection to the July 12 order but criticized the tone of their dissent, emphasizing the need for courtesy among justices. Moreover, Justice Shah found their warning to candidates and the electoral commission troubling, viewing it as a potential threat to judicial integrity and procedural adherence.
Justice Shah also stressed the importance of respectful dialogue among justices, regardless of differing opinions. He lamented the potential impact of such disputes on the court’s dignity, a sentiment echoed by senior counsel who advocated for judicial restraint.
Former Additional Attorney General Tariq Mehmood Khokhar referenced similar judicial conflicts from 1997, suggesting a recurring pattern under certain political conditions.
Advocate Taimur Malik pointed out the significance of the detailed judgment’s critique of the dissenting judges’ notes, underscoring concerns about its impact on the sanctity of judicial decisions.
Following the ruling, Justice Shah penned a letter voicing his concerns about recent changes to the bench-forming committee influenced by a new ordinance. He questioned the constitutional validity of these amendments and urged full court deliberation before accepting such changes.
Justice Shah’s letter called for maintaining the court’s integrity and public confidence, which is critical given the discretionary powers the new ordinance granted to the Chief Justice. He advocated adherence to established protocols before altering committee compositions, stressing transparency and judicial independence.
