Pakistan’s judicial system is facing internal discord as two senior Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) members, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, have raised serious objections to recent amendments in the Judges’ Code of Conduct. The two judges warned that the new provisions could undermine judicial independence, centralise power, and be used to suppress dissenting voices within the judiciary.
In a strongly worded letter to the SJC, both judges cautioned that democracy and constitutional integrity depend on an independent judiciary that must remain free from undue influence or political control. They urged that any move which could restrict judicial autonomy should be approached with “the utmost caution and firm resistance.”
Concerns Over Selective Application and Judicial Silencing
The judges highlighted that the revised code is vague and overly broad, allowing potential misuse against specific judges. Such ambiguity, they warned, could enable “selective application” to target judges whose opinions differ from prevailing institutional narratives.
They asserted that judicial independence should never depend on the courage or discretion of one person but must be embedded in a balanced and distributed system of authority. The two judges maintained that the amendments dilute transparency and concentrate control in a manner inconsistent with both constitutional principles and global judicial norms.
Article XIX and Centralisation of Authority
Justice Mansoor and Justice Munib criticised the inclusion of Article XIX, which assumes that the Chief Justice remains “immune from influence” and capable of resisting external pressure once it is reported. They described this as a “fanciful assumption,” arguing that when the institution itself is under strain, concentrating authority in one office weakens the judiciary instead of strengthening it.
The judges stressed that following the 26th Constitutional Amendment, such centralisation only made the judicial system more fragile. They urged the SJC to reconsider these structural changes before implementing them.
Objection to Justice Dogar’s Participation
Another key concern raised by the two judges was the inclusion of Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar as an SJC member while an intra-court appeal related to his transfer case remains pending. They advised postponing the council’s proceedings until a final judgment on the matter is reached.
According to their letter, Justice Dogar’s participation could “cast doubt upon or undermine the credibility” of SJC decisions. They expressed confidence that Justice Dogar would consider recusing himself voluntarily to uphold institutional transparency and integrity.
Objections to NJPMC’s Role in Code Amendments
The two judges also opposed the discussion of the new Code of Conduct within the National Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC), arguing that the committee lacks constitutional authority to amend judicial codes. They stated that since three of the SJC members also serve as ex officio members of the NJPMC, their prior involvement effectively “pre-decided” the matter before it came under SJC review.
This, they noted, deprived the remaining members of fair participation, violating constitutional propriety. They recommended that any consideration of amendments should only occur through a reconstituted SJC, excluding members who participated in the NJPMC deliberations.
Warning Against Amendments That Threaten Judicial Autonomy
The judges warned that the proposed changes—particularly the amendment to Article V, insertion of Article XIX, and adoption of the 2003 SJC Resolutions—pose a serious threat to judicial transparency and autonomy. They argued that these provisions, if implemented, would transform the judiciary from a collegial institution into a hierarchical one, opening avenues for internal and external control.
Their letter concluded by recommending that no amendments to the Judges’ Code of Conduct be adopted until the decision on the 26th Constitutional Amendment is finalised. The two judges emphasised that preserving judicial independence is vital for maintaining public confidence and the rule of law in Pakistan.
