ISLAMABAD: Justice Qazi Faez Isa, senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court, questioned if the parliamentarians, executive and public office holders are accountable then why not the judges of the superior courts.
He was heading a three-judge bench, which also comprised Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Shahid Waheed, that on Wednesday heard a suo motu case related to examining the grant of 20 additional marks to a Hafiz-e-Quran student while admitting them for an MBBS/ BDS degree.
The judge also raised question over the constitution of a special bench for hearing cases, under Article 184(3) of the constitution.
During the proceeding, Justice Faez remarked that the constitution envisages the trichotomy of powers among three organs of the State, namely the legislature, executive, and judiciary. He said; “If the parliamentarians could be held accountable by the Supreme Court or the electors, then why we (judges of SC/HCs) are completely unaccountable.” As we are not accountable therefore we need to be extra vigilant, he added.
Addressing the Attorney General for Pakistan Shehzad Ata Elahi said; “Why should not my conduct be discussed. Also make me accountable.”
“Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done,” he added. He further said Article 19 of the constitution talks about the freedom of expression, adding “We (judges) can’t stop media to discuss us.”
The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) on March 9, 2023, through a notification forbade TV channels from broadcasting of any content related to conduct of sitting high courts and Supreme Court judges on electronic media. The regulator directed all media houses to refrain from telecasting any content against state institutions.
Justice Faez expressed surprise over the notification, saying by imposing restriction on the satellite and news channels the government is destroying the mainstream media. The Pemra has threatened the channels to suspend their licences without show cause. “We were shocked after reading the Pemra letter.” The regulator can impose reasonable restrictions, but cannot regulate in a blanket manner, he said. “The impression is given to suppress the people’s voice.”
He inquired from AGP whether “state institution” is defined somewhere. The attorney general responded that Article 7 mentions the state, but not ‘state institutions’. Upon that, Justice Faez said the Pemra by mentioning ‘state institutions’ in the notification has lowered the status of the Supreme Court and the High Court, which are constitutional bodies. He questioned whether the Pemra had issued the notification to please the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Justice Faez said that instead of Supreme Court and High Courts protection is required for civil and sessions judges as the bulk of litigation is done by the district courts. He said more protection and security are needed for the sessions’ judges who award death sentence to an accused.
At the onset of the hearing, Justice Faez questioned why the special benches and not the full court of the Supreme Court are constituted for hearing matter under Article 184(3).
Justice Faez said the members of this bench, earlier in the day had heard cases in various benches. “We had finished our work, but a special bench was constituted for this case.” This case could have also have be heard by the regular bench of three members.
The judge asked the attorney general for Pakistan (AGP) does he have answer from where the concept of constituting a special bench has come from. Does the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, allow it?
AGP Shehzad Ata Elahi replied; “I was asked to assist the court in this case.” He said if the Court issue him notice regarding the matter then he would assist the bench.
Afnan Kundi, who was representing the PMDC, stated that it had been a practice that the chief justices of the High Courts or Supreme Courts constitute the special benches.
Justice Faez said the special bench create doubts in the mind of the litigants. The person who is seeking 20 marks for admission to medical colleges would think why so and so judge is included in the special bench.
The bench said that the matter of additional marks to “Hafiz-e-Quran” is a sensitive matter, adding people ‘hifz’ Quran to please Allah and not for extra marks to get admission in the medical colleges.
Afnan Kundi informed that the PMDC in 2021 has abolished the policy of giving extra 20 marks to “Hafiz-e-Quran”. The case was adjourned for an indefinite period.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2023
Comments
Comments are closed.