There is division amid meddling concerns

ISLAMABAD:

Instead of uniting to deter alleged agency interference in judicial functions, divisions have prevailed in the past three hearings in the apex court.

It all started with the arrival of a letter from six judges of the Islamabad High Court at the office of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), which exposed the rifts within the judiciary, with judges disagreeing on the best way to address the issue.

Reports indicate that even during a full court hearing, the judges were divided over the formation of an inquiry committee to delve into the allegations of the six IHC judges.

Ex-Chief Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jilliani’s decision to relinquish the charge of heading the inquiry committee left a three-judge committee led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Isa grappling with the issue. A larger bench comprising seven members took charge and initiated suo motu proceedings to delve into the IHC judges’ allegations.

During the first hearing, CJP Isa strongly defended his actions in response to the letter from the IHC judges. However, a dissent surfaced in the form of Justice Athar Minallah, who disagreed with the first twelve paragraphs of the larger bench’s order.

Interestingly, the larger bench’s first court order before Eid was conspicuously absent from the Supreme Court’s website, although it was available to the copy department.

During the first hearing, CJP Isa had hinted at constituting a full court to address the issue. It is noteworthy that Judge Minallah had referred to the word ‘full court’ in his supplementary note.

Later, following the resignation of Justice Yahya Afridi, a six-member larger bench met on April 30 to deliberate on the issue. However, major differences in views emerged between CJP Isa and Justice Minallah regarding alleged agency interference in judicial functions.

Furthermore, despite being issued in open court, the order remained unissued. Because the order never saw the light of day, the federal government was unable to respond.

Read Lawyers strike against ‘interference’

Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan told the court on Tuesday that the reply could not be filed as the written order was yet to be received.

Strangely enough, it came to light that certain judges had not signed the order with pen and paper. The April 30 order was presented to the judges at a public hearing, pending their signatures. However, debate continues as to why the order has not reached the justices for signature.

It remains unclear whether the order that was verbally outlined in open court saw the light of day or whether something crucial went wrong.

Judge Athar Minallah added his additional note with his pen during the open court hearing.

Justice Minallah noted that the Federal Government must file its response to the high status of executive interference as highlighted by all courts.

“This is the most serious and serious undermining of the independence of the judiciary, which cannot be downplayed.”

He said the federal government controls the intelligence agencies and it is up to the federal government to explain its position before this court.

The buck stops with the federal government. “The High Courts have indicated that the phenomenon existed until recently,” he added.

During the three hearings, a lawyer said that three different perspectives emerged within the court. Firstly, there are those who argue for establishing guidelines for the future.

Second, there are advocates of erecting barriers as a precaution before further progress is made. Finally, there are those in favor of leaving the matter to the high courts for resolution.

He also noted that there is a schism among Supreme Court judges over the investigation into the issue.

One faction seeks to assign responsibility through the investigation process, while another faction strives for the investigation to uncover the truth. During the hearing, CJP Isa did not comment on endorsing the concerns of the Supreme Court judges regarding the intrusion of bodies dealing with judicial matters.

Observers note that the internal discord within the Supreme Court undoubtedly plays into the hands of the executive and security apparatus. It cannot be denied that if judges in the court continue to openly defend each other’s positions, the judiciary will undoubtedly be further weakened.