Legal fraternity demands full hearing

ISLAMABAD: The legal fraternity demanded the setting up of a full bench to hear the suo moto case regarding Islamabad High Court judges’ letter alleging intelligence agency interference in judicial functions, ARY News reported .

All Pakistani Lawyers’ Conventions were held in Lahore, rejecting a larger bench formed by the Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan. The lawyers demanded that the Supreme Court constitute a full bench to continue the hearing.

They also demanded that the case be heard on a daily basis. “Action must be taken against those who interfere in judicial matters,” said a statement issued after the convention.

Meanwhile, the lawyers also demanded the authorities concerned to quash the terrorism clauses in the cases registered against the arrested lawyers. “All arrested lawyers must be released with dignity,” she added.

It is pertinent to mention here that the Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan on Thursday constituted a new bench to hear a suo motu case regarding the allegations of interference by intelligence agencies in judicial functions.

A new bench was constituted after Judge Yahya Afridi withdrew from the hearing. Except Justice Yahya Afridi, all other six members of the previous bench are part of the new six-member bench.

Read more: Letter from IHC judges: Judge Yahya Afridi steps away from the suo moto bench

Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa would head the bench, which also consists of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhaill, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Qazi Faez Isa on April 1 took suo moto notice of the letter from IHC judges alleging that intelligence agencies had interfered in legal matters.

Top judges of IHC – including Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Baqir Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Justice Salman Rafat Imtiaz – wrote the letter to SJC in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment of March 22 on the dismissal case of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui.

In the letter, the top judges asked for advice from the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) regarding the duty of a “judge to report on and respond to actions by members of the executive branch, including agents of intelligence services, who attempting to interfere with the discharge of his/her official functions constitutes harassment.”