Justice Mandokhail Withholds Comment on 26th Amendment, Awaits Dec 16 Meeting
Islamabad-Mudassar Chuhdary)-Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail has responded to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s letter, addressing concerns about the judicial commission’s rules and proceedings. Justice Mandokhail acknowledged receiving Justice Shah’s letter on December 12 and clarified that the Judicial Commission was reconstituted following the 26th Amendment ¹.
In his response, Justice Mandokhail explained that the commission authorized the Chief Justice to form a committee to draft rules for judicial appointments. He also mentioned that many of Justice Shah’s suggestions were incorporated into the draft rules.
ice Mandokhail explained that the commission had authorised the chief justice to form a committee for drafting new rules. In the Judicial Commission’s meeting on Dec 6, Chief Justice Yahya Afridi unanimously appointed Justice Mandokhail to lead the committee tasked with preparing the draft rules.
Also read: 26th Amendment disrupted balance in judicial appointments: Justice Mansoor
Justice Mandokhail further stated that two committee meetings had already been held. He underlined that the recommendations proposed by Justice Shah had been incorporated into the draft even before the letter was received. The proposed draft had already been shared with Justice Shah for review, he added.
Supreme Court’s senior judge Mansoor Ali Shah wrote to Justice Jamal Mandokhail, head of the rules-making committee, urging an urgent revision of the judicial appointment process.
In the letter, Justice Shah noted that the judiciary historically played a pivotal role in appointments, but this balance had shifted significantly post-26th Amendment. “The executive’s enhanced role in appointments has disrupted the equilibrium,” he stated.
Justice Shah warned that even a single irregular appointment could erode public trust in the judiciary. To address this, he submitted detailed proposals to the committee, emphasising the need for rules that uphold judicial independence.
Citing Article 175(4) of the Constitution, he highlighted that the Judicial Commission had the constitutional mandate to develop such rules. Without them, he cautioned, the Commission’s proceedings on appointments could lose legitimacy.
He also expressed concerns over the judiciary’s minority position in the Commission after the amendment, warning that executive dominance risks politically influenced appointments.
Transparent and impartial rules, he stressed, were essential to safeguard judicial autonomy and public confidence.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.