GB Judicial Crisis: 10 Years of Delay | Shyok Times

Judicial Crisis Deepens in GB: Courts Wait for Justice

GB judicial crisis has reached a point where prolonged vacancies at the Gilgit-Baltistan Supreme Appellate Court are no longer simply an administrative problem. They have become a serious question of access to justice, institutional capacity and public confidence in the region's highest appellate forum.

For nearly a decade, the Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan has struggled to maintain its full judicial strength. The court is legally structured around a Chief Judge and two other judges, yet the institution has continued to function with only Chief Judge Justice Sardar Muhammad Shamim Khan hearing cases. The court's official website and 2026 cause lists confirm his continuing role and show hearings being conducted before his chamber.

The result is a judicial system carrying a burden that one judge cannot realistically eliminate while new cases continue to arrive.

Why the GB judicial crisis matters

The Supreme Appellate Court is not an ordinary court. Under the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, it is the region's highest court of appeal. The Order provides for a Chief Judge and two other judges, meaning the intended structure is a three-member court.

Its jurisdiction includes important appellate matters arising from the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. The court also has original, review and advisory jurisdiction under the governing legal framework. Its own website explains that certain matters of public importance must be heard by a bench of at least two judges.

That makes judicial vacancies more consequential than a simple shortage of government employees.

When the court cannot constitute the benches required for particular proceedings, litigants can be left waiting even when their cases are otherwise ready for hearing.

Recent reporting has placed the number of pending cases in the Supreme Appellate Court at around 10,000. An earlier report submitted by the Advocate General of Gilgit-Baltistan to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2025 reportedly put the number above 8,000. The exact figure can change as cases are filed, disposed of, transferred or otherwise concluded, but both figures point to the same structural problem: an enormous caseload being handled with severely limited judicial manpower.

A vacancy problem that began years ago

The roots of the present crisis go back to 2016.

According to reporting from Gilgit-Baltistan's legal community, the death of Supreme Appellate Court judge Shahbaz Khan in 2016 was followed by a vacancy that remained unfilled. Another judge, Javed Ahmed, retired in 2018.

A later appointment temporarily increased the court's strength when Chief Court judge Wazir Shakeel was elevated to the Supreme Appellate Court. But after his retirement in 2021, the court again returned to a situation in which Chief Judge Sardar Muhammad Shamim Khan was effectively handling the judicial workload alone.

The official court website provides a revealing picture of the situation in 2026. Its cause-list pages repeatedly identify Justice Sardar Muhammad Shamim Khan as the judge hearing matters in his chamber. The September 2026 lists, for example, continue to show cases before his chamber.

This is not evidence that the court has stopped functioning altogether. It has not.

In fact, the court continues to hear important criminal, civil, service and election-related cases.

In September 2026, for example, the Chief Judge heard election litigation involving the Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly and delivered decisions in significant cases. The court also continued to hear land and government-service disputes.

The issue, therefore, is more precise: the Supreme Appellate Court continues to function, but without the full judicial strength contemplated by law.

One judge cannot replace a three-judge institution

The distinction matters.

The Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 states that the Supreme Appellate Court shall consist of a Chief Judge and two other judges. It also specifies that appeals are to be heard by a bench consisting of not less than two judges in relevant appellate proceedings.

This means that a single judge is not simply performing the work of three people. The absence of additional judges can affect the court's ability to constitute benches and hear matters requiring more than one judge.

The court's official jurisdiction page similarly states that certain original-jurisdiction matters involving questions of general public importance are heard by a bench of at least two judges.

That is why filling vacancies is not merely about reducing a backlog.

It is about restoring the court's ability to operate according to the institutional structure established by the governing legal framework.

The human cost of delayed justice

Behind every pending case is a person.

A service appeal may involve an employee waiting for reinstatement, promotion or regularisation. A criminal appeal may concern a person whose liberty is at stake. A property dispute can affect an entire family. An election case can affect representation in the legislature. A government appeal can involve public funds or the implementation of public policy.

For a litigant, a case number is never merely a statistic.

A person waiting five or ten years for an appellate hearing may experience financial hardship, professional uncertainty, family pressure and emotional exhaustion. Witnesses can become unavailable. Documents can be lost. Circumstances can change. Lawyers and litigants can age while the legal dispute remains unresolved.

This is the deeper meaning of the GB judicial crisis.

Justice delayed is not only a problem for the judiciary. It becomes a problem for society.

The appointment process has also become controversial

The shortage of judges cannot be separated from disputes surrounding the appointment mechanism.

The Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 contains provisions governing judicial appointments. The legal framework provides for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Appellate Court and Chief Court through a prescribed process involving the relevant authorities. The Order also establishes the structure and qualifications for appointments.

The appointment process became particularly contentious when litigation challenged the federal government's handling of judicial appointments in Gilgit-Baltistan.

In April 2025, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan lifted a stay that had prevented new judicial appointments in GB. The development followed an understanding between the Attorney General for Pakistan and the Advocate General of Gilgit-Baltistan that appointments would proceed under the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018.

That development removed an important legal obstacle.

Yet the vacancies have continued.

That raises a straightforward public-interest question: if the legal obstacle has been removed, why has the institutional vacancy remained unresolved?

The latest question: approval versus notification

A new question emerged in late September and early October 2026 over reports that the Prime Minister had approved a summary concerning the appointment of two judges to the Supreme Appellate Court.

The reported approval is significant, but approval and appointment are not necessarily the same thing.

A summary can move through an administrative process, receive approval and still require the formal notification and subsequent oath-taking necessary for an appointment to become operational.

As of the latest information reviewed for this report, Shyok Times has not found a publicly accessible formal notification confirming that the reported two appointments have been completed.

That distinction is important.

A reported approval should not be presented as a completed judicial appointment unless the competent authority formally notifies the appointments.

This is particularly important in a judicial system already suffering from prolonged uncertainty.

The public deserves clarity about whether judges have actually been appointed, who has been appointed, when the notification was issued and when the new judges will take oath.

The court is still working — but the burden is enormous

It would be inaccurate to describe the Supreme Appellate Court as completely non-functional.

Recent evidence shows the opposite.

In September 2026, Chief Judge Sardar Muhammad Shamim Khan reportedly disposed of 18 cases during seven days of hearings involving criminal, civil and service matters. The court also continued receiving new appeals and issuing notices.

The court has also handled politically and institutionally significant cases.

In September, it dealt with election disputes concerning Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly seats, including an appeal involving an Election Tribunal decision.

These developments demonstrate the commitment of the sitting Chief Judge and court staff to continue providing judicial services.

But they also underline the contradiction at the centre of the GB judicial crisis.

One judge can deliver decisions.

One judge cannot substitute indefinitely for a properly staffed appellate court.

The Chief Court faces its own vacancies

The problem is not confined to the Supreme Appellate Court.

Lawyers have also raised concerns about vacancies in the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court and subordinate judiciary. Recent reporting said at least one Chief Court position and several civil judge positions had remained vacant for extended periods.

The Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 provides for a Chief Court consisting of a Chief Judge and other judges, with the number of judges subject to the legal framework.

If vacancies persist at both the appellate and lower levels, the pressure naturally moves through the entire judicial pipeline.

A case delayed in a subordinate court can become a delayed appeal. A delayed appeal can then become another unresolved file in the Supreme Appellate Court.

The result is cumulative.

Temporary judicial appointments are not a permanent solution

Another concern is the use of short-term or temporary judicial appointments.

A judicial office should provide institutional independence and stability. Where a judge's tenure is unusually short or dependent on renewal, questions can arise about institutional security and public confidence.

The solution is not simply to appoint someone quickly.

It is to establish a transparent, merit-based and predictable appointment system that gives judges the security necessary to decide cases independently.

The Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 itself provides that judges of the Supreme Appellate Court are appointed for a three-year term, subject to the conditions specified in the Order.

Any departure from a stable institutional framework deserves careful public scrutiny.

What should happen now?

The answer to the GB judicial crisis does not require another decade of committees, summaries and political disputes.

First, any appointments already approved should be formally notified without unnecessary delay.

Second, the appointed judges should take oath and begin judicial duties as soon as the legal requirements are completed.

Third, appointments should be based on competence, integrity, experience and the applicable legal criteria rather than political influence.

Fourth, the appointment process should become transparent enough for the public and legal community to understand where a nomination is at any given stage.

Fifth, there should be a clear statutory or regulatory timeline for processing judicial vacancies, including a reasonable deadline between approval and formal notification.

Sixth, the government should publish reliable and regularly updated judicial vacancy and case-pendency statistics.

Seventh, the judiciary and bar should develop a case-management strategy for the backlog, particularly for older cases that have already waited for years.

None of these measures is radical.

They are basic institutional requirements for a functioning justice system.

The missing ingredient is accountability

The most disturbing aspect of the crisis is not that a vacancy occurred.

Vacancies happen.

The disturbing question is how a vacancy can remain unresolved for years in a court whose role is so fundamental to the administration of justice.

The Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 clearly establishes the Supreme Appellate Court as the highest court of appeal and sets out its judicial structure.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan's intervention in 2025 removed the immediate stay on judicial appointments.

The court itself continues to operate and hear cases.

Yet the structural shortage remains.

That gap between legal design and institutional reality is where accountability must begin.

Gilgit-Baltistan cannot afford another decade of waiting

The people of Gilgit-Baltistan deserve a judicial system capable of hearing their cases within a reasonable period.

They deserve to know that an appeal will not disappear into an administrative file.

They deserve confidence that judicial appointments will be made on merit, processed transparently and notified promptly.

And they deserve an appellate court that can operate with the bench strength contemplated by the law.

The current GB judicial crisis should therefore not be treated as an isolated dispute between lawyers and government officials. It is a public-interest issue affecting every citizen who may someday need an independent court.

The immediate priority is simple: fill the vacancies, restore the court's full strength and clear the backlog through a credible case-management programme.

If the reported appointments have already been approved, the next step should not remain hidden in paperwork.

It should be a notification.

Then an oath.

Then a functioning bench.

Because for a litigant who has already waited years, another administrative delay is not merely another delay.

It is another year of uncertainty.

And justice in Gilgit-Baltistan cannot remain in limbo any longer.

Sources and further reading

The legal framework can be checked against the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, while the court's current structure, jurisdiction and cause lists are available through the official Supreme Appellate Court of Gilgit-Baltistan website.

The 2025 development concerning the lifting of the stay on judicial appointments was reported by the Associated Press of Pakistan.

Recent reporting on the continuing vacancies and pending cases was published by Dawn, while September 2026 court activity has also been reported by APP and other news outlets.

External Resources (DoFollow):
Follow more on The Friday Times: Justice In Limbo: Gilgit-Baltistan Apex Court
Read further at ANI News: Judicial crisis deepens in Supreme Appellate Court of GB
Keep reading via DAWN: GB faces judicial crisis as top court vacancies remain unfilled