SC judges seek deferral of code changes till 26th Amendment, SJC ruling

ISLAMABAD: The senior-most judges of the Supreme Court proposed that the amendments to the Code of Conduct for judges be deferred until the decision on the 26th Constitutional Amendment and the constitutional legitimacy of the Supreme Judicial Council’s (SJC) composition is settled.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, on October 17, a day before the Council’s meeting (on 18 October), wrote a joint letter to the SJC chairperson and the members, which was made available to the media on Tuesday.

The Chief Justice of Pakistan, who is also the chairman of the SJC, during the Council’s meeting, held on October 18, proposed some amendments in the Code of Conduct (CoC) for the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The proposed amendments were thoroughly deliberated upon and with some amendments approved by majority decision of the Council, were directed to be notified in the official gazette, circulated to all Judges of the superior courts, and posted on the website of the Supreme Court.

In their letter, both the judges had proposed to postpone the Council meeting or reconstitute it as the seniority and status of Justice SarfrazDogar in his High Court under challenge before the Supreme Court.

They objected to the discussion that took place in the National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee (NJPMC) meeting (17-10-25), a day before the SJC meeting, on proposed amendments, saying that a matter which lies solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the SJC should not have been discussed before the NJPMC.

They mentioned that no member of the Council, including the Chairman, has the authority to place proposed amendments before any other body, least of all the NJPMC, which has no constitutional competence in this regard.

They recommended that no amendment to the Code of Conduct be adopted without a Full-Court consultation and a broad-based, collegial process engaging all judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, whose independence the Code seeks to safeguard.

The further suggested that comparative material from the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) and the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985), and other democratic jurisdictions, be circulated and debated to ensure that any reform strengthens, rather than constrains, judicial independence.

The letter noted that the proposed amendments under Agenda No.2 to the Code of Conduct for the judges, particularly the amendment of Article V, the insertion of Article XIX, the incorporation of the 2003 SJC Resolutions/Guidelines, raise grave concerns about the independence, autonomy, and transparency of the judiciary.

They wrote that these proposals, if adopted, will restrict judicial freedom, transform an open and collegial institution into a closed and hierarchical one, and create avenues for control both internal and external.

The SC judges stated that the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which has also sought to substitute Article 209, remains under challenge before the Supreme Court. Until that matter is decided, the status of the Chairperson and one of the Members is sub judice. Constitutional propriety, therefore, requires that no amendments to the Code be undertaken until that issue is settled.

The letter maintained that the Code of Conduct is not a transient rule but a long-term institutional document, administered by changing leadership over time. It must therefore be framed with care and restraint, ensuring that its language cannot be abused in different hands. The Code must be viewed not through the lens of the present, but as a charter for the future-one that safeguards, rather than constrains, judicial independence. The ban on “any interaction with the media” is absolute and disproportionate. In times when executive interference or internal maladministration threatens independence, this gag clause disables judges from defending the institution publicly.

It said that proposed Article XIX lays out no clear standard for what constitutes “influence,” no requirement of evidence, and no method of inquiry or record-keeping. Without procedural transparency or independent oversight, such reports could be ignored, delayed, or suppressed at the discretion of the Chief Justice. Knowing that every report will pass through an internal hierarchy may deter judges from speaking up about external pressure or interference, particularly where the pressure is systemic.

Both judges have also expressed grave concern over the incorporation of SJC Resolutions dated 4 October 2003 in the Code of Conduct.

The letter stated that any attempt to retrospectively alter or expand the Code would not only offend constitutional propriety but also contradict the universal principles of judicial independence embodied in international standards.

They wrote that proposed Articles V and XIX and the 2003 Resolutions violate the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) and the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985). They also wrote that Articles V and XIX and the 2003 Resolutions replace independence with hierarchy, transparency with secrecy, and accountability with control. By subordinating every judge to the Chief Justice, prohibiting legitimate expression, and introducing mechanisms of surveillance and restraint, they erode both individual independence and institutional autonomy-the twin pillars of a free judiciary.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025