Justice Mansoor Ali Shah Must Also Examine His Own Judicial Legacy
By Zaman Khan Vardag, ASC
Justice (R) Mansoor Ali Shah was once among the judges I admired and respected most. His recent article, “The unfinished independence,” published in Dawn on 14 August 2026, deserves serious consideration. In that article, Justice Shah makes a powerful observation that the gravest damage to Pakistan’s constitutional system was done not by generals or bureaucrats but by judges. I agree that the judiciary has, at various points in Pakistan’s history, played a significant role in weakening constitutional governance. But his argument also raises an uncomfortable question: Does he include himself among those judges whose decisions may have contributed to this institutional damage?
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah was a member of the bench that quashed the Presidential Reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa. He was also among the judges who did not support the additional directions concerning the examination of the properties held in the names of Justice Isa’s wife and children. I am not suggesting that ownership of an asset by a judge’s wife or child automatically establishes wrongdoing, nor am I suggesting that Justice Isa was guilty merely because questions were raised about such assets. The real issue is accountability. Where serious questions arise concerning the acquisition, source, or beneficial ownership of assets held by the immediate family of a serving superior court judge, those questions should remain capable of lawful, independent, and transparent scrutiny. An inquiry is not a finding of guilt, and due process is not the absence of accountability.
This is where I believe Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s judicial role deserves critical examination. A judgment concerning one judge does not end with that judge; it creates a precedent for every future judge. If the legal approach adopted in the Isa proceedings makes meaningful scrutiny of a judge’s family assets more difficult, then its consequences extend far beyond Justice Qazi Faez Isa. A principle developed in one case can eventually operate in favour of every future constitutional office-holder. That is why judges who establish constitutional precedents carry a responsibility extending beyond the immediate parties before them. The question is, therefore, not simply whether Justice Isa was entitled to due process. Of course he was. The question is whether the constitutional mechanism for accountability was sufficiently preserved while protecting that due process.
This is precisely why Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s present criticism of the judiciary becomes difficult to reconcile with his own judicial legacy. He now tells us that judges themselves have caused enormous damage to Pakistan’s constitutional system. I agree that judicial decisions have historically contributed greatly to that damage. But then the question must also be asked: was his own participation in the Isa proceedings part of that problem? If he believes that his position was legally and constitutionally correct, he should explain why that approach strengthens rather than weakens judicial accountability. If, with the benefit of hindsight, he believes that the approach weakened accountability, then he should have the courage to acknowledge it. Such an acknowledgement would not diminish his stature; on the contrary, it would demonstrate precisely the judicial character and courage that he now urges upon others.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has written about the courage required of judges to resist fear, pressure, and institutional weakness. I respectfully agree. But that principle must apply to every judge, including the judge who now speaks about the failures of the judiciary. Before attributing the present damage to other judges, he should also ask himself whether any of his own judgments contributed to creating the judicial culture that he now criticises. The courage to criticise other judges is not the highest form of judicial courage. The greater courage is to examine one’s own judgment.
I do not allege that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah acted with any improper personal or political motive. I do not know his motives, and it would be unfair to speculate about them. My criticism is directed at the legal and institutional consequences of his judicial position, not at his personal integrity. A judge can act in good faith and still participate in a judgment whose institutional consequences may subsequently prove damaging. Judges themselves have repeatedly reminded lawyers that good faith does not automatically make a decision legally correct. The same principle must apply to judges.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah is entirely entitled to speak about the weaknesses of Pakistan’s judiciary after retirement, and his experience gives his observations considerable value. But retirement should not place a judge’s own judicial legacy beyond scrutiny. If judges have indeed caused more damage to Pakistan’s constitutional system than generals and the establishment, as Justice Mansoor Ali Shah now argues, then judicial accountability must begin with the judges themselves. It cannot reasonably mean that judges scrutinise the conduct and decisions of others while their own consequential judgments remain immune from public and legal examination.
I therefore respectfully ask Justice Mansoor Ali Shah to apply the same standard to himself that he now applies to the judiciary. If he believes that his role in the Qazi Faez Isa proceedings was entirely consistent with the principle of strong judicial accountability, he should explain why. If he now believes that the approach adopted in those proceedings weakened accountability, an acknowledgement would carry considerable weight. Because if the judiciary is to regain public confidence, it must demonstrate that no judge is beyond accountability—not because he is guilty, but because no institution can remain healthy if its own decisions are beyond examination.
If Justice Mansoor Ali Shah truly believes that judges have caused more damage to Pakistan than generals and the establishment, then his present article should not merely be a criticism of other judges. It should also be an occasion for institutional self-reflection. Before telling Pakistan how its judiciary went wrong, every judge—including a retired judge—must be willing to ask where his own decisions may have gone wrong. That is not an attack on judicial independence. That is judicial accountability.
Reference
Justice (R) Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, “The unfinished independence,” Dawn, 14 August 2026.
Author: Zaman Khan Vardag
Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan
