SC SOP raises questions over CJP’s power to prioritise case fixation

ISLAMABAD: A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Supreme Court of Pakistan has sparked questions over the extent of the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s discretion in fixing cases on a priority basis.

The controversy centres on the “Standard Operating Procedure of Fixation of Cases” dated April 21, 2026, which, according to the document reviewed by Minute Mirror, contains provisions allowing cases directed by the Chief Justice of Pakistan to be fixed on priority.

The issue has gained attention because the wording of the written SOP appears to raise questions about recent courtroom observations concerning the mechanism for priority fixation of cases.

The SOP’s Section 2, titled “Fixation Priority,” sets out the circumstances under which cases are to be fixed within the same week. Clause 2.1(g), dealing with civil matters, includes cases involving a short legal question as well as “any case directed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice to be fixed on priority.”

A similar provision appears in Clause 2.2(h) concerning criminal matters, which also refers to cases directed by the Chief Justice to be fixed on priority.

The document further states in Clause 4(g), under General Principles, that cases involving important questions of law or short legal points may be fixed according to the directions of the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

Taken together, these provisions appear to indicate that the Chief Justice has a role in directing the priority fixation of certain cases, subject to the framework prescribed in the SOP.

The development has prompted questions about how the written policy should be reconciled with statements made in court regarding the case-fixation process. The central issue is whether the April 21 SOP remains the operative policy governing priority fixation and, if so, how its provisions should be understood alongside recent judicial observations.

The SOP states that its objective is to ensure the efficient, transparent and timely fixation of cases in accordance with institutional priorities and principles of access to justice.

Legal circles have called for clarification from the Supreme Court administration to remove any ambiguity surrounding the mechanism. A senior constitutional lawyer, speaking to Minute Mirror, questioned how the written SOP and courtroom assertions could be reconciled if they appear to convey different positions regarding priority fixation.

“The issue requires institutional clarity because the written SOP expressly refers to cases directed by the Chief Justice to be fixed on priority,” the lawyer said.

The matter now centres on whether the provisions of the April 21, 2026 SOP remain fully applicable and how the Supreme Court administration interprets the Chief Justice’s role in priority case fixation.

The Registrar’s Office had not, according to the information available for this report, withdrawn or amended the cited provisions of the SOP.