ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court’s senior puisne judge, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, has called on the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to make public the minutes of all its meetings held under the tenure of Chief Justice Yahya Afridi.
In a letter dated June 25 addressed to the JCP secretary, Justice Shah expressed concern over the discontinuation of the practice of releasing meeting minutes to the public. He termed the lack of transparency an issue of institutional importance.
“The appointment of judges is a public act with far-reaching consequences,” the letter read. Justice Shah said that the people of Pakistan have a right to know how judges are selected, what standards are applied, and whether those standards are followed in good faith.
He added that the judiciary must uphold openness and public accountability as a benchmark for other state institutions. Justice Shah argued that the absence of transparency is inconsistent with the image of the Supreme Court as a guardian of constitutional values.
He requested the commission to release all minutes of JCP meetings held during the tenure of CJP Afridi, in line with earlier practices. Under the previous chief justice, Qazi Faez Isa, minutes of meetings conducted under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act were uploaded on the court’s website, a practice that has since stopped.
Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii supported Shah’s concerns, stating that the principle behind recent reforms in judicial appointments was transparency. He noted that sharing meeting minutes was a key element of that transparency, but this has been halted without explanation.
Concerns have also been raised about executive influence in judicial appointments following the 26th Constitutional Amendment. Critics say the executive now has a stronger role in selecting judges for both high courts and the Supreme Court.
Several lawyers and legal experts have pointed out that some senior judges were not nominated to constitutional benches or for elevation to higher courts without any justification. In some cases, dissenting judges were allegedly sidelined by the commission.
There have also been complaints about changes in the commission’s stance on judges whose integrity was previously questioned. The appointment of government-aligned lawyers as judges, while overlooking candidates with strong reputations for integrity, has also raised questions.
Legal observers argue that CJP Afridi has so far failed to develop a strategy to reduce executive influence in judicial appointments. Around 50 appointments have been made in the superior judiciary since the amendment’s passage.
Justice Shah’s letter underscores growing concern within the judiciary and legal circles over transparency, fairness, and independence in judicial appointments.
