Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s recent reconstitution of the Supreme Court’s Practice and Procedure Committee showcases his unwavering commitment to upholding judicial integrity and transparency. Despite facing criticism and opposition from within the judiciary, particularly from senior puisne judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, CJP Isa’s decision to replace Justice Munib Akhtar with Justice Aminuddin Khan was grounded in legal and practical reasoning, underscoring his dedication to addressing inefficiencies and maintaining the sanctity of the judicial process.
In response to Justice Shah’s objections over the exclusion of Justice Akhtar, CJP Isa went beyond the legal requirements, offering 11 specific reasons for the reconstitution. Although legally the senior puisne judge cannot dictate who the Chief Justice appoints to the committee, Isa’s transparency in laying out his reasons reflects his leadership style, one rooted in accountability and openness. His reasons for replacing Justice Akhtar range from the latter’s consistent opposition to the Practice and Procedure Act, to concerns regarding his inefficiency, indifference to workload, and behaviour towards senior colleagues. These issues reflect Isa’s broader vision of reforming the Supreme Court to ensure that it functions more effectively.
One of the central reasons for Akhtar’s exclusion was his vocal opposition to the Practice and Procedure Act itself, which seeks to decentralise the powers previously concentrated with the Chief Justice. Isa’s letter points out that Akhtar’s stance on the Act was problematic, as it undermined efforts to bring procedural reforms to the Court. Furthermore, Isa criticised Akhtar’s decision to take full summer vacations, showing indifference to the backlog of pending cases—a stark contrast to the work ethic that Isa seems to promote. Justice Akhtar’s insistence on attending committee meetings while on vacation also raises questions about his trust in the senior judiciary, as noted by CJP Isa.
Another crucial point raised by CJP Isa was Akhtar’s refusal to hear urgent constitutional cases while on leave, which violated the statutory provisions of the Practice and Procedure Act. This failure to prioritise urgent cases highlights a key inefficiency that Isa seems determined to address. His emphasis on maintaining the timely dispensation of justice, especially in cases of constitutional importance, is a cornerstone of his broader judicial reform agenda.
Isa also highlighted Akhtar’s unprecedented actions concerning ad hoc judges, specifically his exclusion of these judges from the Shariat Appellate Bench and his directive that another judge perform ‘chamber work’ until a colleague returned from bereavement. Such moves, according to Isa, demonstrated a lack of respect for senior judges, an issue that CJP Isa appears committed to rectifying by promoting greater collegiality within the judiciary.
Justice Akhtar’s conduct during committee meetings was another point of concern, with Isa citing his rude behaviour towards a distinguished committee member and his decision to walk out of a meeting. Additionally, Isa pointed out that Akhtar’s bench often adjourned cases early, sometimes finishing before 11 a.m., which undermined the court’s efficiency and was a point of contention among other judges. Such inefficiencies, Isa argues, are precisely why reforms and reconstitutions like these are necessary.
A particularly serious concern was Akhtar’s pattern of issuing stay orders in cases where he was involved, notably in the controversial audio-leaks case, which has broader implications for the integrity of the judiciary. CJP Isa’s critique of Akhtar’s quick granting of injunctive relief in important constitutional cases, without resolving them, underscores his emphasis on the need for thorough and timely adjudication of cases.
CJP Isa also addressed Justice Shah’s claims that Justice Yahya Afridi had been bypassed in the reconstitution of the committee. In a candid explanation, Isa revealed that Justice Afridi had, in fact, expressed his unwillingness to serve on the committee, a fact confirmed during a full court meeting. Isa’s decision to appoint Justice Aminuddin Khan, who even cancelled a visit to Lahore to participate in the committee meeting, was made in the spirit of keeping the committee functional and effective in the face of absences and objections.
Justice Isa further dispelled allegations of “cherry-picking” and a “one-man show” as baseless and out of touch with the reality of his achievements since becoming Chief Justice. These include holding full court meetings after four years, streamlining the issuance of cause lists, deciding several important cases, and appointing all judges of the Supreme Court. In this context, Isa’s leadership has been instrumental in pushing forward much-needed reforms to ensure that the judiciary remains efficient and responsive to the nation’s needs.
Furthermore, Isa took issue with Justice Shah’s comments about a “constitutional crisis” in the country, noting that such statements from a senior judge undermine the country’s political and economic stability. This criticism underlines Isa’s view that members of the judiciary should refrain from making comments that could disrupt national stability, particularly when the judiciary itself is working towards clearing accumulated cases and providing timely justice.
In his concluding remarks, CJP Isa called on Justice Shah to return to the committee and work together to address the backlog of cases. His appeal for collective responsibility within the judiciary reflects his broader vision of a unified and accountable court that serves the nation efficiently.
CJP Qazi Faez Isa’s decision to reconstitute the Practice and Procedure Committee was not just a bureaucratic move but a reflection of his deep commitment to judicial reform, transparency, and accountability. His leadership, in the face of internal opposition, sets a new precedent for ensuring that the judiciary remains focused on delivering justice swiftly and fairly while maintaining its independence and integrity.
Well your article gives impression judiciary within judiciary is divided and there is no actual boss like in other institution