SC issues notices to Faisal Vawda, Mustafa Kamal

  • SC conducts hearing on suo motu notice taken against Vawda's press conference against judiciary
Updated 17 May, 2024

The Supreme Court (SC) issued notices on Friday to Senator Faisal Vawda and Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan’s (MQM-P) leader Mustafa Kamal, seeking responses from them on their recent statements against the judiciary.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Saadat Irfan Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar, Afghan heard the case today.

On Thursday, the SC took suo motu on the press conference of Vawda in which he demanded ‘evidence’ of alleged interference of intelligence agencies in judicial matters.

Addressing a press conference, the senator raised questions on the assertions made by IHC Judge Babar Sattar about interference in judicial matters.

IHC judges’ letter: SC urges govt action on alleged interference in judicial matters

“Merely making accusations isn’t enough; there must be evidence presented in court,” Vawda said.

The former federal minister urged Justice Sattar to provide proof of the alleged interference. He also called upon the SJC to intervene in the issue.

Vawda stressed the importance of safeguarding the nation against both external and internal plots and advocated for refraining from targeting state institutions.

Judges’ letter

In March, IHC judges including Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz wrote a letter to Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) seeking guidance on the interference of intelligent agencies in judicial functions.

Later, the SC took suo motu on a letter of the IHC judges of interference and intimidation by the operatives of intelligence agencies in judicial work.

Later, Lahore High Court and IHC held Full Court meetings in their respective courts. The IHC judges unanimously decided to give an institutional response in case of any such meddling into their judicial working in future.

Read Comments