In a letter dated Thursday, seen by Dawn.com, Justice Shah said he was reluctantly writing it in “discharge of an unavoidable institutional duty”, adding that what compelled him was “your (CJP’s) persistent and complete indifference”.
The judge wrote that his “repeated letters and written communications to you (CJP) on the undermentioned issues have gone unanswered and undiscussed; not once have I received a reply-neither in writing nor verbally”, adding that such silence from the chief justice to the senior puisne judge was “not merely discourteous; it undermines the collegial traditions of this court and violates the institutional courtesy without which a constitutional court cannot function”.
Justice Shah said that with the new judicial year commencing from Monday, CJP Afridi had convened a judicial conference to review the reforms undertaken under his leadership and to lay down priority areas for the coming year.
“It is therefore both timely and opportune that the institutional concerns I raise in this letter be addressed squarely by you in that forum. By doing so, you will not only respond to the questions that remain unanswered but also reassure the judges of this court, the bar and the public we serve that your vision of reform is grounded in collegiality, transparency, and fidelity to the Constitution.”
Why has the Practice and Procedure Act Committee never been convened to carry out its statutory responsibilities?
Why was the revision of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 approved by circulation rather than after discussion and deliberation in a Full Court meeting?
Why was the policy on releasing dissenting opinions adopted by soliciting individual opinions of the judges — saying it was a process “unheard of” — rather than an open deliberation in a Full Court meeting?
Why was a general standing order on leave issued that subjects judges to controls inconsistent with judicial independence and the Presidential Order of 1997?
Why have the petitions challenging the 26th Amendment not been fixed before the original Full Court?
If CJP Afridi was nurturing independence among judges, or “enforcing compliance to turn this court into a regimented force rather than a constitutional court of free and equal judges?”
Justice Shah said the letter must not be construed as a “personal grievance”.
“The concerns I now raise do not come from indolence or neglect, but from a judge who has consistently and conscientiously performed his duty. They are, therefore, institutional concerns borne of experience and responsibility rather than personal complaint,” he explained.
Justice Shah said that he trusted CJP Afridi to use the judicial conference as a “moment of institutional renewal by answering these questions and reaffirming the principles of collegiality and constitutional fidelity”.
Justice Shah said the questions were those that struck at the “heart of independence” and not only the apex court judges, but also the nation, were looking towards CJP Afridi “not for silence but for clarity”.