Justice Mansoor calls for clear and transparent process to form future constitutional benches
Senior Supreme Court judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah warned that extending the constitutional bench’s term before the 26th Amendment verdict could harm public trust and worsen the judiciary’s crisis.
In a letter addressed to members of the Judicial Commission—written ahead of the Commission’s June 19 meeting—Justice Shah opposed the extension of the tenure of judges on the constitutional bench.
Justice Shah noted that he had informed the Commission well in advance about his unavailability for the meeting as he was out of the country. He expressed disappointment that the meeting was held regardless, pointing out that previous meetings had been postponed due to the unavailability of executive members.
He implied that the judiciary, currently in a minority within the Commission, may not have been able to influence the postponement of the meeting.
In his letter, the senior-most judge cautioned the Commission that proceeding with judicial extensions before resolving the constitutional question surrounding the 26th Amendment would send a damaging signal to the public and undermine institutional credibility.
“The expansion or reappointment of a bench whose constitutionality has been challenged deepens the institutional crisis and undermines the credibility of the court,” the letter read.
“The continuous delay in deciding a fundamental constitutional issue like the 26th Amendment is damaging the credibility of the court and eroding public confidence.”
Justice Shah also urged that all Supreme Court judges be included on the constitutional bench until the case is decided, to avoid perceptions of bias and selective inclusion.
“Including a particular judge in the Constitution Bench without a transparent or established procedure affects impartiality and harmony within the institution,” he said.
Calling for reform, Justice Shah stressed the need for a formal, transparent mechanism to determine the composition of future constitutional benches. He warned that the current process appears arbitrary and may give rise to accusations of “cherry-picking” judges. “This unsystematic approach has already called into question the legitimacy of the constitutional bench, and the exclusion of senior judges without any reason only worsens this perception,” he noted.
The letter also addressed the second item on the meeting’s agenda—policy decisions regarding the formulation of rules under Article 175A(20) of the Constitution. Justice Shah recommended that any such decisions be deferred until the Supreme Court rules on the 26th Amendment case.
In his concluding remarks, Justice Shah emphasized the need for integrity, transparency, and collective wisdom in the Commission’s proceedings. “The strength of the judiciary depends on its credibility, internal coherence, and commitment to constitutional principles—not on short-term interests or executive preferences,” he said.
The release of Justice Shah’s letter adds to the ongoing debate surrounding judicial independence and the alleged influence of the executive in constitutional matters. The 26th Amendment, which is under challenge in the Supreme Court, pertains to key structural reforms within the judiciary and has become a flashpoint for broader institutional tensions.