SC adjourns the letter case from the IHC judge

ISLAMABAD, May 7 (APP): The Supreme Court on Tuesday postponed indefinitely the hearing in a suo motu case over a letter written by six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

A six-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, heard the case.

The Chief Justice noted during the proceedings that pressure could be exerted in every possible way and that was what they focused on. “It has also become a big pressure that we are ruthless,” he added.

He said some people have taken to social media and “live court proceedings are our response to see for ourselves how the court proceedings are being conducted.”

Referring to Article 209 of the Constitution, the CJP said the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) should not be burdened as this is not its responsibility.

Addressing the Islamabad Bar Association (IBA) lawyer, the CJP said the SJC could change the code of conduct. “You should write a good letter to the Council, if they see fit they can accept it.”

IBA lawyer Ahmed Hassan Shah said responsibility would not be determined without an investigation into the matter.

Even for the judges, the method and law would be the same, he said.

The Supreme Court Bar Association, in its submissions submitted to the SC, said it would never compromise on the independence of the judiciary and called for investigations against those who interfered.

It went on to say that there was a complete code of conduct regarding the responsibilities and protection of judges.

The SCBA said the IHC had the power to contempt of court proceedings and should have used it. It was incomprehensible why the Supreme Court did not initiate contempt of court proceedings.

During the hearing, the Karachi Bar Association also submitted its proposals in the matter. It stated that judges should be obliged to inform the competent authority within seven days of any attempted interference, and that authorities should be obliged to ensure the protection of judges.

It said if anyone made a false statement, action should be taken against him. The Supreme Court and high courts should set up a special cell for such reports.

The case was later adjourned.