ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Saturday sought, by a majority decision, comments from an Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge on a complaint of misconduct against him.
The council—a constitutional forum that can hold superior court judges accountable—also approved proposed amendments to the code of conduct for judges—a move many believe is aimed at silencing outspoken members of the judiciary.
According to a press statement, a five-member SJC led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi examined 67 complaints filed against judges of superior court under Article 209 of the Constitution.
Of these, 65 complaints were unanimously decided to be filed, one complaint was deferred, and one was approved for further processing by a majority decision.
Regarding complaints against judges of the IHC, the council was reconstituted under Article 209(3)(b) of the Constitution with the inclusion of Peshawar High Court Chief Justice S M Attique Shah.
IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, who was part of the SJC on Saturday, recused himself from attending the meeting “in view of certain matters on the agenda”.
The reconstituted council examined seven complaints, five of which were unanimously decided to be filed, while two were ordered to be processed further by a majority decision.
The SJC, by majority, sought comments from Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan of the IHC on a complaint of misconduct. He was also cautioned on another complaint.
Sources told The Express Tribune that the council, for the time being, deferred the matter of IHC Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, who is accused of having a dubious LLB degree. One member of the SJC, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, dismissed the complaint against Justice Jahangiri.
Following decisions on the present 74 complaints, a total of 87 cases remain pending for initial consideration. The SJC has addressed 155 complaints since October 2024.
Amendments to judges’ code of conduct
The council, by majority, approved amendments to the code of conduct for judges of the superior courts. Reports indicate that Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar dissented from the majority decision.
The proposed amendments were thoroughly deliberated upon and, with some modifications, approved by a majority. The council directed that the revised code be notified in the official gazette, circulated to all judges of the superior courts, and published on the Supreme Court’s website.
Pursuant to the council’s decision on July 12, 2025, the Chief Justice of Pakistan proposed amendments to the code of conduct for judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. After deliberation, the amended version was approved by majority decision.
According to amended Article V of the code, a judge shall not engage in any public controversy—by way of speech, writing, debate, or comment—on any forum, and particularly not on political questions, even if such questions involve a point of law.
“He shall not interact with the media, especially on issues that may provoke public debate or adversely affect institutional collegiality and discipline.
“Where, however, an allegation is made public against a judge, he may place the matter in writing before a committee comprising the Chief Justice of Pakistan and four senior judges of the Supreme Court, through the Registrar, for an appropriate institutional response.
“He shall not publicly discuss any judicial or administrative matter or disclose any communication relating to his personal or official affairs.”
Another amendment provides that judges of the superior courts shall refrain from presiding over or attending any social, cultural, political, or diplomatic functions.A new Article 13 in the code states that soliciting invitations from foreign or international agencies to attend conferences or meetings will be deemed misconduct.
If a judge receives such an invitation personally, he must request the inviter to route it through the concerned Chief Justice. “A superior court judge shall not accept a dinner or reception hosted in his honour by an individual member of the bar.”
The amended code also emphasizes that, in discharging his duties, a judge must be guided solely by merit and remain independent and firm in the face of internal or external influence.
“If no legal powers are available to counter such influence, the judge must seek an institutional response within the legal domain.
“He shall immediately inform, in writing, the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court through the Registrar.
“In the case of a High Court, the Chief Justice shall place the matter before a three-member committee within two days of receiving the report. The committee shall decide the matter within a fortnight.
“If referred for judicial consideration, it should be decided as early as possible, in line with the principles of fair trial and due process. If the Chief Justice or committee fails to act within the prescribed timeframe, the CJP and the four senior-most judges shall take up the matter.”
Legal opinions
Advocate Faisal Siddiqi said the new Article V was nothing short of gagging the judges by destroying freedom of speech. “How can such judges ever protect the freedom of speech of citizens?” he asked.
Siddiqi further stated that the 26th Amendment, the leave policy, and the new Article V all serve a similar purpose—“to control and silence independent judges.”
Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii described the amendments as “little more than a brazen attempt to muzzle the few voices on the bench that are speaking out against the current status quo.”
Former additional attorney general Waqar Rana noted that all civilized countries and their constitutions recognize the freedom of speech of judges and their non-judicial activities.
“The only limitation is that such non-judicial activities must not interfere with their constitutional duties. Our own Constitution recognizes an extra-judicial role for the Chief Justice of Pakistan, such as appointing an arbitrator in disputes between the federal and provincial governments.”
Barrister Asad Rahim Khan said the proposed rules seek to deliberately seclude judges from their bar, from their community, from evincing any thought or inquiry in general.
“This will have the effect of penalising judges from even the most innocuous participation in public life, and advantage only those mediocrities who have nothing to contribute in the first place. These rules cohere well with the judiciary’s shrinking independence,” he said.
