Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa on Thursday issued a rejoinder to senior puisne Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s letter questioning the removal of Justice Munib Akhtar from the judges committee, detailing 11 reasons justifying his decision.
Last week, after the promulgation of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Amendment Ordinance 2024, the CJP replaced Justice Akhtar with Justice Aminud Din Khan on the three-member judges’ committee tasked with fixing cases and appointing benches. Under the ordinance, the committee would comprise the CJP, the senior puisne judge and a third judge nominated by the CJP.
In his letter, Justice Shah had questioned the removal of Justice Akhtar within hours of the ordinance’s promulgation as well as the appointment of Justice Khan, who is the fourth most senior judge, rather than the third senior-most Justice Yahya Afridi. Questioning the “legality” of the ordinance and referring to prevailing “constitutional crises,” Justice Shah had lamented the “unfortunate cherry picking and undemocratic display of one-man show” of the CJP’s decision and demanded a full court meeting to deliberate on the matter.
Responding to the missive, the CJP noted that legally he was not required to justify his decision, but had decided to in the interest of accountability and transparency. “Let it be remembered that this I do because of your insistence, lest someone takes umbrage,” he said, detailing 11 reasons for Justice Akhtar’s removal.
According to the CJP’s letter, Justice Akhtar had “ardently” opposed the Practice and Procedure law; was one of just two judges to ignore pendency of cases and fully avail his summer vacations; refused to do any court work during his break while demanding full participation in the judges’ committee; and violated the law’s requirement to fix urgent cases within 14 days during his vacation. Additionally, it said, he had disrespected his senior ad hoc judges by restricting them to 1,100 cases and refusing to allow their participation in the Shariat Appellate Bench and by restricting one of them to chamber work when the other was on leave. Similarly, the letter continued, Justice Akhtar had displayed “rude and unreasonable behavior” toward a member of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan and walked out of its meeting.
The letter also pointed to Justice Akhtar adjourning most cases before the bench headed by him and wrapping up all work by 11 a.m., “a concern expressed by his companion judges”; issuing stay orders in all matters wherein reference was made to him, as in the audio leaks case; and being “quick” to give injunctive relief in important constitutional cases but then leaving them pending.
The letter further clarified that Justice Afridi was approached to join the judges’ committee but had demurred, prompting the CJP to appoint Justice Khan instead.
The 4-page letter also addressed Justice Shah’s “cherry-picking” criticism, maintaining he had not surrounded himself with a “clique” like his predecessors, nor interfered in the registrar’s cause lists. He also maintained he had paved the way for the Feb. 8 general election and directed urgent hearing of all election-related cases.
At one point, the CJP took great umbrage over Justice Shah’s reference to “constitutional crises,” stating it was “inappropriate” for a judge to say something that undermined political, economic and financial stability of the country. “What purpose, if I may ask, is served by this comment?” he questioned.