CJP says a complaining judge should not be here

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Qazi Faez Isa has said he disagrees with Justice Athar Minallah’s arguments on interference in the judiciary. “And if it happens, a judge who complains about this should not be here and should stay home. The court has the power to make a suo motu declaration.”

A six-member larger bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Isa on Tuesday heard a suo motu case based on a letter written by six judges of the Islamabad High Court alleging interference of intelligence agencies in judicial matters. Other members of the bench were Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

During the hearing, Justice Mansoor highlighted the development of a system where a judge can discharge his professional duty without any intimidation and interference, saying the system would make him stronger. He noted that there was no tablet available on the market that could make a judge a stronger, yet lively system. “We must come up with such a system where when a judge takes a stand for the protection of the independence of the judiciary and dares to raise his voice against any interference, the entire judiciary must stand behind him, but if a judge finds himself in danger , it can be removed within minutes. .”

Justice Minallah noted that the biggest challenge for Supreme Court judges in 2018 was that the Supreme Court of Pakistan was complicit.

Shahzad Shaukat, chairman of the Supreme Court Bar Association, objected to Justice Minallah’s comments on the complicity of Supreme Court judges, adding that such comments could erode public confidence in the judiciary.

The Chief Justice asked Shaukat if he wanted to say that those judges should not sit here and should go home. Judge Minallah replied that not only he but also the Attorney General had said this. He said interference in the judiciary was a fact, adding that lies had been told in this country for 76 years. “Why are we afraid and reluctant to tell the truth? We must accept interference in the judiciary.”

Shaukat advised the court to regulate social media and take action against trolling of judges, besides initiating contempt proceedings for interference in the judiciary.

Justice Minallah noted that interference in the judiciary was not stopped by the Faizabad Dharna case nor by any other measure.

The chief justice said that when a commissioner told a lie, the media highlighted it but no one asked for evidence.

Meanwhile, under the court’s earlier order, the federal government could not file a response to the recommendations of high court judges regarding intelligence interference alleged by judges of the Islamabad High Court. Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan sought a day to file the government’s response to the matter, saying the written order from the previous hearing had not yet been received. “I need to communicate with the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister before submitting the response, so I need a copy of the court’s latest order.”

At this, the Chief Justice asked the court staff whether the order had been signed, and if not, why? He said the court had written the order in open court. The AG stated that if the order was received, the government would file its response today (Wednesday). When the AG had difficulty reading Judge Minallah’s handwritten note, he read it himself, which said that the federal government controlled the agencies and therefore should respond to IHC judges’ allegations and the judges’ recommendations of all high courts. He asked the federal government to clarify its position as Supreme Court justices pointed out that the interference was still ongoing. “Therefore, it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that there is no interference,” he noted.

Meanwhile, the counsel for the petitioner has appeared before the court. Hamid Khan said he would represent the Lahore High Court Bar Association and the Balochistan High Court Bar Association. Ahmed Hussain said he would join Advocate Aitezaz Ahsen, Shahzad Shaukat Supreme Court Bar Association, Abid S Zubairi Supreme Court Bar Association, Advocate Salahuddin Sindh Bar Council, Ahmed Hassan Shah Islamabad High Court Bar Association, Ahsen Bhoon Punjab Bar Council and Riyazat Ali Sehr Pakistan represent the Bar Association.

The Chief Justice asked a question about filing separate petitions by the lawyers and bar associations. Ahsan Bhoon said this would happen if the court allowed the lawyers to be heard individually. He told the court that they had unanimously passed a resolution on this and asked what kind of tradition was created by giving permission to listen?

The Chief Justice said: “We do not create tradition, we believe in democracy.” Justice Minallah said disagreements were the beauty of democracy, adding that the opposition was more important in parliament than the treasury benches.

Pakistan Bar Association Vice Chairman Riazat Ali Sahar stated that kidnapping a judge’s brother-in-law, throwing crackers into the house of a sessions judge and installing spy cameras in judges’ bedrooms are serious allegations that relate to criminal offenses and can be dealt with under Section 228 of the Act. the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). He recommended a judicial inquiry into the matter and asked that a judicial commission be formed, consisting of one or more sitting Supreme Court judges, to identify and punish those responsible.

Justice Minallah said the six judges of the Islamabad High Court said and all the judges of the Supreme Court confirmed that there was interference. One Supreme Court judge stated it as a fact and opined that interference with the judiciary was an undermining of the Constitution. He recommended contempt proceedings for interference with the judiciary.

Making arguments, Ahmed Hasan Shah said internal and external interference in the judiciary should be investigated. The Chief Justice said: “We cannot change what has happened in the last fifty years, we can only sympathize.”

Ahmed recommended setting up a communication system in the judiciary and said cutting the neck does not guarantee the independence of the judiciary.

Justice Mansoor noted that when he was the Chief Justice of a High Court, he experienced that if something happened to a civil judge, a sessions judge would settle the matter without informing the Chief Justice. “Even if a lawyer hurts a judge, the Supreme Court should know about it immediately,” he said.

The Chief Justice said the issue is not about communication but about failure to take a vibrant stand.

Justice Minallah said if the judiciary was united as an institution, the state would have no chance to interfere. The Chief Justice wondered whether the failure to hear a case at trial was also the fault of the intelligence services. He asked Hamid Khan how many applications for early hearing he had filed in the Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui case. He said that if a judge complained about interference in judicial affairs instead of taking action, he diminished his authority.

Judge Jamal said: “If we are not working according to the Constitution, people have the right to ask us.”

Judge Minallah said the court had asked the federal government what was going on and who was responsible?

Judge Jamal said the prime minister was involved in the case because he was the prime minister.

The court later adjourned the hearing with the ruling that the parties involved would be informed about the next hearing date.