The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, has once again rejected a proposal to make its proceedings public. Despite repeated calls for transparency, the commission voted down the idea during its recent sessions, citing existing rules and legal limitations.
According to a detailed report, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah had first proposed in November 2024 that the JCP should release the minutes of its meetings. However, the majority of the members opposed the suggestion. He renewed the demand on June 25, 2025, urging the commission to follow past transparency practices set during former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s tenure — when a committee regularly published its meeting summaries on the Supreme Court’s official website under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah emphasized that under Article 19A of the Constitution, the public has the right to know about judicial appointments, which are of national importance and directly affect public trust in the judiciary. He argued that transparency in judicial nominations is vital to maintaining democratic accountability.
Despite his push, Law Minister Azam Nazir Tarar maintained that such decisions should reflect the collective wisdom of the commission members. Attorney General Mansoor Awan added that the in-camera nature of the meetings is protected under the JCP’s 2010 rules, and any shift would require a formal amendment to those rules.
In the final vote, 11 members opposed the transparency proposal, while only 3 supported it, including Justice Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar. Chief Justice Shafi Siddiqui of the Sindh High Court was absent. The JCP also noted that PTI opposition leaders Umar Ayub and Shibli Faraz missed the November 2024 meeting, with their phones switched off, which caused a delay in proceedings.
In a recent letter, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah reiterated his concerns, calling the secrecy surrounding the commission’s work “neither healthy nor in line with the judiciary’s constitutional role.” He stressed that judicial appointments are a matter of significant public interest and that the current opacity undermines public confidence in the process.