ISLAMABAD: Justice Qazi Faez Isa once again dismissed an impression that he is interested in extension in his tenure as the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP).
After the Full Court reference, in an informal interaction with the members of the Press Association of the Supreme Court at the SC building, Justice Faez denied Rana Sanaullah’s assertion on his extension.
The Full Court was held on Monday to mark the start of the new judicial year. Attorney General for Pakistan, Vice-chairman Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Farooq H Naek and President Supreme Court Bar Association Shehzad Ahmed Malik also spoke.
Govt says CJP not interested in extension of tenure
Responding to the question that Rana Sanaullah in a programme stated that if the ages of the government servants and all the judges will be increased then the chief justice will also be agreed to get extension, Justice Faez asked the journalist to bring Sanaullah in front of him.
The CJP explained that in a meeting, where Attorney General for Pakistan Usman Mansoor Awan was also present, Federal Minister for Law and Justice Azam Nazeer Tarar mentioned that the government was thinking of enhancing the retirement age of judges. Rana Sanullah was not present there, he stressed.
The chief justice said he told them “enhance the retirement age of other judges, but I am not interested, as I don’t know whether I will be alive tomorrow or not.”
When another journalist questioned his opinion on increasing the number of judges in the Supreme Court, and is it not akin to “court packing”. The CJP replied he is not aware of such legislation, adding this question should be put to the parliamentarians. When this issue comes before the Court then he would be able to comment on it, he said.
All the judges except the most senior judges Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Muneeb Akhtar, and adhoc judge Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel attended the full court reference. A large number of lawyers was also present.
Justice Mansoor is presently in the USA participating in seminars. No reason was told about the absence of Justice Muneeb, but it was informed that Justice Miankhel is ill
In Monday’s FC proceeding, for the first time members of the Supreme Court Shariat Appellate Bench – Justice Dr Khalid Masood and Justice Dr Qibla Ayaz – also participated.
Addressing the reference, CJP Faez remarked previously, it was common to predict the outcome of a case just by looking at the bench“. “Now, even I do not know which judges will sit alongside me for a case,” he continued.
The CJP also outlined several reforms aimed at enhancing the judicial process, including live broadcasting of hearings. He noted that the decision to air cases of public interest was made to provide direct access to court proceedings. “The purpose of live transmission was to show our performance to the public. Before this, people only knew what TV channels or YouTubers reported,” he explained.
He pointed out that the first case broadcast live was the Practice and Procedure Act, which was heard by the full court. The ruling led to a transfer of powers from the chief justice to a panel of three judges.
The chief justice also highlighted changes in court procedures, including the approval of the cause list. “Previously, the chief justice would approve the cause list every Thursday, and had the authority to modify it.” “That power has now been abolished, and it is now the Registrar’s responsibility to schedule cases for hearings. The cause list no longer comes to the chief justice,” he said.
He further mentioned that he had returned luxury vehicles provided for official use, including a bullet-proof Land Cruiser stationed at the Lahore registry. “I told the government to sell these cars and buy buses for the public instead,” Justice Faez added.
Addressing the issue of judges’ inclinations, the chief justice noted that “every judge develops certain tendencies over time”. “It becomes somewhat clear if a case lands with a particular judge, whether they would lean towards the prosecution or not. This happens all over the world.”
Justice Faez also revealed that all staff members on deputation at the SC had been sent back, as no one should remain in such positions for more than three years. “Their stay was preventing the promotion of permanent employees. With their departure, 146 Supreme Court employees have been promoted and 78 new appointments made,” he stated.
Regarding case assignment, he clarified that “it’s no longer the chief justice who assigns cases, but a committee. Criticize, but speak the truth and report the facts.”
However, the vice chairman PBC said: “We must work towards a process that ensures elevation of most qualified and impartial individuals, free from undue influence. It is imperative that the mode of appointment of Judges need to be changed with consensus of all stakeholders.”
A more rigorous, merit-based selection process is essential, ensuring candidates are chosen for their legal expertise, integrity, and commitment to justice. This will help build a judiciary that commands public confidence.
He urged the Court to revisit its judgment in Munir Bhatti’s case as it has stifled the powers of the Parliamentary Committee on judges’ appointment. “The judgment is an encroachment on their powers and is violative of the principle of separation of powers as enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan. It is imperative to have a relationship based on law and constitution between judiciary and parliament.
Article 209 of the Constitution regarding conduct of a judge needs to be made more effective and transparent. Effective rules be framed for deciding a complaint against conduct of a judge within a certain period.
Regarding exercise of suo motu powers under Article 184(3), clearer guidelines are necessary. These should be developed through a consultative process with all stakeholders, including judiciary and legal community. A well-defined framework will ensure this power is used judiciously, maintaining a balance between enforcing the law and protecting individual rights.
We need to reform the use of contempt of court laws to align them with free speech and democratic principles. While it is crucial to protect the judiciary’s dignity, these laws should not suppress legitimate criticism. A constructive dialogue within the legal community can refine these laws, ensuring fair application that strengthens public trust.“
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments