The debate around the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and the 26th Amendment has resurfaced after Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar issued a detailed letter clarifying why the matter should have been addressed through a Full Court meeting rather than the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). Their letter sheds light on the background of the constitutional challenge and the institutional response—or lack thereof—within the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Why the Full Court Was Necessary
In their letter, Justices Shah and Akhtar emphasized that when petitions against the 26th Amendment were filed, no question was more important for the Supreme Court. They explained that they had made “strenuous efforts” to have a Full Court convened, either on the judicial or administrative side, but a consensus did not emerge.
They underscored that collective deliberation was critical to uphold the credibility of the judiciary. According to them, the absence of such a forum resulted in the apex court failing to present an institutional response at a time of constitutional significance. They rejected the practice of obtaining judges’ views individually, noting that such an approach lacked legal weight and legitimacy.
The Limits of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan
Both judges categorically stated that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and the 26th Amendment were unrelated matters. The JCP, they argued, is not the appropriate forum for deliberating on whether a Full Court should be convened to hear constitutional challenges.
They criticized how the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) relied on private consultations with judges rather than convening the Full Court. One of the CJP’s notes was even read during a JCP meeting on November 5, 2024—something the judges described as improper, since the JCP had no authority to substitute for the Court’s collective decision-making body.
Their letter highlighted that the only binding decision at the time was the Committee’s resolution of October 31, 2024, which directed the fixing of petitions for hearing. However, this directive was not followed when the petitions were not listed on November 4, 2024.
The Importance of Institutional Consensus
The judges made clear that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and the 26th Amendment debate revealed a deeper institutional problem: the absence of collective consensus within the Supreme Court. They pointed out that rushing through individual consultations undermines the legitimacy of judicial decisions.
In their words, only a Full Court meeting could have provided the “direly needed institutional response” to the constitutional question. Instead, the delay and fragmented handling of the petitions created lasting repercussions for the judiciary and the constitutional framework.
Why the 26th Amendment Matters
The 26th Constitutional Amendment has been one of the most hotly contested legal developments in recent years. It directly impacts how constitutional benches are formed and how certain fundamental questions of law are heard. For a constitutional framework as sensitive as Pakistan’s, the method of hearing challenges to this amendment carries long-term implications.
The failure to convene a Full Court, as highlighted by Justices Shah and Akhtar, risks weakening judicial unity. It also sends mixed signals about how the Court manages issues of national importance.
Broader Implications for the Judiciary
The concerns raised by the two judges go beyond the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and the 26th Amendment. At its core, the debate underscores how procedural decisions affect public trust in the judiciary.
Recent statistics show that Pakistan’s judiciary is already struggling with a backlog of over 2.2 million pending cases across various levels of courts. In such a context, the perception of disunity or procedural shortcuts at the Supreme Court level can further erode confidence in the system. Ensuring transparent, collective decision-making is therefore crucial not just for one amendment but for the judiciary’s overall credibility.
Legal and Constitutional Lessons
From their letter, several important lessons emerge:
- Full Court Deliberation: Major constitutional amendments should only be addressed through collective institutional mechanisms, not private consultations.
- Respect for Binding Decisions: Committee resolutions, once passed, must be implemented fully to preserve institutional discipline.
- Limitations of JCP: The Judicial Commission of Pakistan has a specific mandate—judicial appointments—not constitutional interpretation.
- Transparency: Open deliberations are essential to strengthen judicial legitimacy and public confidence.
The letter from Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate about the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and the 26th Amendment. Their insistence on proper procedure and collective decision-making is not just about one amendment but about the integrity of the judiciary as a whole.
By highlighting how procedural missteps can have constitutional consequences, the judges have reignited the conversation on institutional reforms within the Supreme Court. Whether this leads to a stronger, more unified judiciary will depend on how the Court responds in the future. What remains clear, however, is that safeguarding the constitutional process requires transparency, adherence to procedure, and above all, consensus.
