ISLAMABAD: Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah said compromised judges should be thrown out of the judiciary, but it needs to stand behind those who remain firm against interference in their judicial functions.
A six-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, on Tuesday, heard suo moto, taken on the allegations of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges’ letter about “interference” and “intimidation” by the “operatives of intelligence agencies” in judicial functions.
The Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP), Mansoor Usman Awan, sought some time to file the federal government’s response on the SC 30th April hearing.
SC takes suo motu notice of IHC judges’ letter
Vice-Chairman Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) Riazat Ali Sehr, President Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Shehzad Shaukat and the counsel of Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) Ahmed Hussain Shah presented their proposals.
Justice Mansoor said two factors are lacking in the judiciary. First, it never took action against a judge, who was compromised. Second, if a judge stands up against interference then the whole judiciary should stand behind him. The compromised judges should be thrown out in a minute, he added.
Justice Mansoor further said interference will die out if it is not affected, adding the interference starts when the doors are open; therefore, there is a need to develop a mechanism. He noted that the High Court judges had sought guidance from the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). “We all are working on how to develop the system.”
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan said: “At the end of the day it is a judge, who is approached by the executive or agencies, should take a stand.”
Justice Jamal remarked that in the case of Shaukat Siddiqui all the judges of the superior court were in fear.
SCBA President Shehzad Shaukat submitted: “When we say on the live TV, as the whole nation is watching this proceeding, that the Supreme Court for that matter judges were complicit or compromised. We are not sending [a] good message.”
“It is actually eroding public trust.”
Justice Athar questioned: “Who are we answerable to, and why for the last 76 years have been telling lie(s), and why (are we) not able to tell the truth.” The SCBA chief responded you (the judges) are sitting in Court, and actually you are accepting that you are complicit.
The chief justice then said you (the judges who accept complicity) have no business to sit here. “Let me put it bluntly that when you (the judges) are complicit then don’t sit here.”
Upon that, Justice Minallah said it was not me who said that but in fact this was stated by the attorney general.
Shehzad Shaukat said it was so recorded in the high court case comments.
The chief justice remarked that it is also the agencies’ fault that in the last six years Shaukat Siddiqui’s petition was not fixed and decided.
The CJP said he is not responsible for what had happened in the last 76 years, adding if any interference took place during his tenure then of course he could be blamed. Justice Faez said; “The judges who refused to take the PCO oath, and preferred to go home are our heroes.” He said in the past those (the judges) who were complicit should be named. “We should name and shame such people.”
Justice Athar said that in the last hearing, one of the members of the bench had asked the attorney general to tell what the mandate of the intelligence agencies is. Why in the first stage though accepting interference, but doing nothing about it.
Justice Athar also said in 2018 beneficiary was a political party but now some other party is. “The political parties wanted the system to favour them.” He further said that the buck stops at the federal government but why no one is questioning the government. He observed that the matter pertains not only to a letter written by the IHC judges, but after that there are resolutions of all five High Courts, adding by now heads should have rolled.
The IHCBA counsel responded that the federal cabinet had clarified in its statement that they have nothing to do with the incidents mentioned in the IHC judges’ letter. He said due process should not be changed for the judges of the superior judiciary, then people would have confidence in the judiciary. He argued that the impression should not go that the judiciary protects its cadre. The Court has to avoid populism as well, he added.
Justice Afghan remarked that the judge’s statement should not always be considered gospel truth.
The chief justice asked the IHCBA counsel not to burden the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) with the duties, which are not its mandate, because Ahmed was repeatedly arguing the SJC should probe the matter.
The CJP said if tomorrow someone threatens him then he should complain about it to his colleagues, adding if he does so then my colleagues tell me to sort it out myself. He said; “If I complain about intervention to his colleague then I diminish my own power. Why do I give my power to someone instead of using it, myself?” He said the judges need to assert their authority.
Justice Jamal said the main issue should be why the interference takes place. He said three times Martial Law was promulgated in the country, and when the judiciary plugged that hole then interference started in different ways.
Ahmed Hassan said that the interference would not end in one day, but it keeps on changing its shapes.
The chief justice said the judges are not weak, but they are powerful as no one can remove them except through SJC. The judges are not answerable to Parliament, or any government official or the executive, but they are answerable to their chief justices or the senior judges.
The judges have power to issue contempt notice to anyone, who meddles in their judicial functions. The CJP said even a civil judge cannot be removed by the government; the action against him can be taken only by his respective chief justice. It is a self-sustained system, he added.
Justice Faez said; “If we make High Courts subordinate to the Supreme Court then in fact we will weaken them.”
Justice Hilali said our (judges’) commitment should be with our oath and the Constitution. The courted adjourned the case for an indefinite period.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024