ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa said, “We all should strengthen the parliament, because if it is strong then other forces will become weaker.”
The CJP said while heading a six-judge bench, comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan. The bench heard the suo motu, taken on the allegations of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges’ letter of “interference” and “intimidation” by the “operatives of intelligence agencies” in judicial functions.
It directed the Federation to file a reply on the allegations of IHC judges and said if the Federation wants to make any proposal, recommendation, or suggestion to stop the agencies’ interference in judicial work then it may do so. Pakistan Bar Council, Supreme Court Bar Association, and the provincial bar councils and associations were also asked to file suggestions or proposals. If any intelligence agency feels aggrieved by the allegations in the letter of the IHC judges’ then it can file a reply.
Justice Faez said in order to end the agencies’ interference the parliament should legislate, but the government took no steps to implement the Supreme Court’s judgment on Faizabad dharna. Justice Athar said: “If we are talking about the legislation then it means we are helpless.” Whatever the judges of IHC narrated in the letter, the judges of other High Courts supported their stance. It is a continuing phenomenon, and there is a culture of deviance. He asked the AGP that intelligence agencies and the state should file affidavits regarding the interference.
Justice Athar said: “We need to show how to secure the independence of judiciary, and how to ensure that the executive and intelligence agencies don’t interfere in judicial functions and intimidate the judges.” “Can we contain and restrict the culture of deviance.” He said that the proposals of the high courts are not just proposals, but charge-sheet against the State organs.
Justice Athar said the Faizabad dharna judgment was a landmark verdict, but what the government did, it constituted a commission, that failed to probe things mentioned in the judgment. He said the agencies are under the control of the prime minister and the cabinet. If they (the agencies) indulge in illegal acts, then the PM and cabinet are responsible. He said the armed forces cannot perceive wrong against the people as they are defenders of the nation.
Justice Mansoor said that if the dharna judgment was not implemented then at least the bench should make suggestions to end the element of internal complicity. The chief justice remarked which case is fixed, and to before which bench is also complicity. Justice Faez said that to separate him from the bench, which was hearing a case against the PTI government, a judicial order was passed by a larger member of the Supreme Court. He said the world knows that it was General Faiz behind Faizabad dharna but “I dissociated from the case because I don’t want to give the impression of personal (vendetta), therefore, left it to the government to form a commission.”
Justice Afghan questioned what was the job description of intelligence agencies – ISI and MI – and what was their original mandate, and if any officer in the name of the national interest interferes in the judicial functions or threatens any judge then could the whole department be held responsible? Justice Jamal said if such things happen then it should also be made clear whether it was an officer or institution’s plan.
Justice Hilali said if the judges cannot propel the pressure then they should not sit in the court. Justice Athar said the issue that six judges highlighted in the letter was against the state and the state organs. Justice Jamal then remarked that the only fault of the six judges was that they wrote a letter to the SJC and after that a malicious campaign started against them, adding; “If we (the SC) take a stand then what would happen to us.” He said after taking suo motu the campaign launched against the chief justice.
Justice Faez said had the Supreme Court judgment on Faizabad dharna implemented then such interference might have stopped. He also said interference in the judiciary is not always external, but it is from institution too.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024