- Justice Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar pen letter to SJC chair, saying changes will ‘transform open institution into closed hierarchy’
- Letter warns amendments risk internal and external manipulation of judiciary
- Judges oppose media, political, and social engagement bans under new code
- Seek postponement of code changes amid pending 26th Amendment, IHC CJ case
ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court’s Senior Puisne Judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar have raised serious reservations over the recently approved amendments to the Code of Conduct for superior court judges, warning that the changes could curtail judicial freedom and open doors to both internal and external control.
In a detailed letter addressed to the SJC chair and members, the two judges said they had submitted written comments ahead of the meeting and later revised them to reflect what they termed an “unfortunate and constitutionally inappropriate” move by the National Judicial Policy-Making Committee (NJPMC) to deliberate on the Code—a domain they said lies “solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the SJC.”
“These proposals, if adopted, will restrict judicial freedom, transform an open and collegial institution into a closed and hierarchical one, and create avenues for control, both internal and external,” the judges cautioned.
The concerns surfaced after the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on October 18 approved wide-ranging changes to the Code, barring judges from engaging in public controversy or political discussion and introducing new restrictions on media interaction, social conduct, and diplomatic participation.
The meeting of the SJC—chaired by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi—was attended virtually by Justices Shah and Akhtar, while Lahore High Court Chief Justice Aalia Neelum and Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar joined in person.
Judges’ objections to new clauses
Justices Shah and Akhtar took particular exception to the amendment of Article V of the Code, which now prohibits judges from speaking, writing, or commenting publicly on any controversial or political matter, even when questions of law arise.
They also objected to the addition of Article XIX, which requires judges facing “influence” to report to their respective chief justice, who must then inform the CJP — a mechanism the judges warned could be “manipulated to suppress legitimate whistleblowing by judges resisting external interference”.
They further opposed the incorporation of the 2003 SJC Resolutions/Guidelines, which bar judges from attending social, cultural, political, or diplomatic events, saying such restrictions would “reduce the judiciary’s visibility and connection to the community”.
Another newly inserted clause treating the solicitation of invitations from foreign or international forums as misconduct was also criticized. The judges argued that participation in global judicial seminars enhances “comparative learning and professional competence,” strengthening—not weakening—judicial capacity.
Freedom of speech and accountability concerns
The judges outlined 10 key risks arising from changes to Article V, particularly due to the undefined terms “public controversy” and “political questions,” which they said could cover nearly any matter of constitutional or legal significance.
They warned that the amendments may “compel judges to remain silent on constitutional issues even outside the courtroom,” leading to self-censorship that would stifle intellectual exchange and weaken jurisprudential development.
Terming the ban on media interaction a “gag order”, they said it insulates the judiciary from public scrutiny, while the prohibition on public discussion of administrative or judicial matters “shields the institution from accountability” and prevents judges from defending its integrity.
The judges cautioned that such provisions “could be selectively invoked against outspoken judges, particularly those critical of executive overreach or internal mismanagement”, creating a chilling effect and space for disciplinary misuse.
“In Pakistan’s fragile democratic environment,” they added, “such clauses can be weaponised by executive or establishment forces through compliant leadership to silence independent voices.”
“During testing times for democracy, judicial independence requires openness and moral courage—not silence or conformity,” the letter stated.
Procedural reservations
Justices Shah and Akhtar also raised procedural concerns about the approval process.
They recalled that in a letter dated October 13, they had urged postponement or reconstitution of the SJC meeting, citing that Justice Sarfraz Dogar’s seniority and status as IHC chief justice were currently under challenge before the Supreme Court.
“The outcome of that case will directly determine his eligibility to serve as a member of the SJC,” they noted.
The judges further pointed out that the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which altered the judicial framework and composition of the Council, also remains under challenge before the SC.
“Until that matter is decided, the status of the chairperson and one of the members is sub judice. Constitutional propriety therefore requires that no amendments to the Code be undertaken until that issue is settled,” they wrote.
They additionally observed that three chief justices participating in the October 18 meeting—all ex officio members of both the NJPMC and SJC—had already approved the Code changes at the NJPMC level, effectively “pre-deciding the matter before it came before the Council.”
