ISLAMABAD:
Four Supreme Court justices have raised questions over the legality of the Supreme Court Rules 2025, which were enacted last month.
Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Munib Akhtar, Ayesha Malik and Athar Minallah objected that the rules were introduced without deliberation and approval of the full courta constitutional requirement.
“The present Supreme Court Rules were never placed before, nor approved by, the Full Court. This omission is not merely procedural but goes to the very root of legality. Article 191 of the Constitution vests the Supreme Court with the power to make rules regulating its practice and procedure, but this power is exercised collectively by the Court as an institution.
“Rules framed without deliberation and approval of the Full Court therefore lack the imprimatur of the Court itself, and cannot acquire binding legal status,” the four judges wrote in a four-page letter addressed to Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi and other SC judges.
The four judges also recused themselves from attending the full court meeting held on Monday. It is learnt that during the meeting no judge referred to the objections raised. The meeting had been summoned to consider amendments to the Supreme Court Rules 2025.
The judges questioned why the full court was bypassed in approving the rules but then convened later to deliberate on their amendment.
“By seeking its views only after notifying the rules, the exercise reduces the Full Court to a cosmetic role, a forum for ratifying what has already been done rather than discharging its true constitutional function under Article 191. In effect, the meeting is being used to give a veneer of legitimacy to an otherwise invalid process,” the letter stated.
The judges further objected to the method of approval.
“The rules were processed through circulation. Circulation is an administrative convenience to deal with routine or minor procedural matters; it is not, and cannot be, the vehicle for laying down the constitutional architecture of this court’s governance.
“Unless the Full Court itself had expressly resolved to adopt circulation for this purpose, the chief justice alone could not unilaterally resort to it. The present rules therefore suffer from both substantive and procedural illegality.”
They also pointed out that the agenda itself created confusion.
“It invokes Rule 1(4) regarding ‘removal of difficulties’ and refers to a committee already constituted by the chief justice. But no difficulty in giving effect to the rules has been identified, nor does any occasion presently arise for invoking this provision Instead of clarifying the legitimacy of the rules, this only exposes their infirmity.”
The judges called the convening of a full court meeting at this stage “puzzling” and “fallacious.”
“On 9 August 2025, the rules were already notified as ‘approved.’ Yet, within three days, on 12 August 2025, the chief justice sought suggestions for amendment
“This sequence tacitly acknowledges that the Full Court is the correct forum for such deliberation, but only after the fait accompli of unilateral approval. This amounts to putting the cart before the horsefirst declaring the rules valid, and then calling the Full Court merely to consider patchwork amendments.”
The letter concludes that the only constitutionally consistent and institutionally honest course would be to place the rules in their entirety before the full court, permit genuine discussion, and seek formal approval.
The judges requested that their objection be recorded in the minutes and that the minutes be made public, stating that people are entitled to know how such Rules were adopted without discussion.
Full court meeting
Later, a full court meeting was held, attended by all judges except the four dissenting ones.
According to a Supreme Court declaration, after “thorough deliberations and a hectic debate,” the full court unanimously agreed that the Supreme Court Rules 2025 are a “living document” which will remain open to amendments to accommodate legal and social developments. It was also decided that all suggestions received will be examined by the Committee, which will then make recommendations to the full court.
The court further decided that for the time being, fees and securities under the repealed 1980 Rules will continue to apply in the 2025 Rules.
The chief justice termed the development “a significant milestone” reflecting the judiciary’s commitment to strengthening institutional frameworks.
Lawyers react
Legal experts say the legitimacy of the new rules is under serious question. Talking to The Express Tribune on condition of anonymity, a former attorney general for Pakistan said there was “a lot of force” in the objections raised by the four judges.
“It is very odd that the rules, which are amended after 45 years and are meant to govern the procedure of the Supreme Court, are adopted in such a casual manner.
“Yet, for addressing assumed anomalies, a full court meeting was called with such fanfare. It’s ironic that the new rules are stillborn due to sheer mismanagement. What legitimacy would they have now in the eyes of the public?”
He added that the rules should have been framed through a proper sub-committee of the full court, circulated publicly for feedback, and then formally approved by the full court.
“The method of circulation is used for bodies that frequently meet and where something urgent cannot wait until the next meeting. To use it for framing Rules after 45 years, by a full court that rarely meets, is a very bad precedent,” he said.
