News
May 03 , 2024
Justice Minallah Says State Has to Protect Judges, Independence of Judiciary
Islamabad: Justice Athar Minallah on Tuesday said the state had to protect the country’s judges and the independence of the judiciary.
He made the remarks as a six-member Supreme Court (SC) bench resumed hearing a case pertaining to allegations made by six Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges regarding interference by the country’s security apparatus in judicial matters.
Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, the bench included Justices Minallah, Mansoor Ali Shah, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Musarrat Hilali and Naeem Akhtar Afghan. The proceedings were streamed live on the SC’s website and its YouTube channel.
In late March, six IHC judges — out of a total strength of eight — wrote a startling letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) members, regarding attempts to pressure judges through abduction and torture of their relatives as well as secret surveillance inside their homes.
The letter was signed by judges Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Saman Rafat Imtiaz.
A day later, calls were raised from various quarters for a probe into the investigation, resulting in CJP Isa summoning a full court meeting of the SC judges.
In a meeting, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and CJP Isa had decided to form an inquiry commission, which was later approved by the federal cabinet.
However, ex-CJP Tassaduq Hussain Jillani — tasked to head the one-man inquiry commission — recused himself from the role, urging Justice Isa to “resolve the issues raised in the letter at the institutional level”. At the same time, the top court took suo motu notice of the matter.
Justice Yahya Afridi, who was among the seven-member bench that presided over the last hearing, had recused himself from the case. At the previous hearing, CJP Isa had asserted that “any attack” on the judiciary’s independence would not be tolerated while hinting at forming a full court to hear the case.
Besides the suo motu, the SC has also taken up more than 10 petitions and applications seeking its intervention, which were filed by various bar associations and had been clubbed together.
A week ago, an IHC full court decided to introduce several measures, including the reactivation of “empowered” inspection teams to put an end to the alleged meddling. Later, a four-point “ unanimous proposal ”, signed by all eight IHC judges, was issued that largely relied on existing laws to counter any interference.
On Tuesday, Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan appeared before the apex court.
The SC ordered the petitioners — the bar councils and associations — to submit a response by the next hearing on May 7, adding that it would be appropriate if it were unanimous.
It also said that the federal government could submit its response or proposals through the AGP if it wanted to do so. CJP Isa said that if the allegations “refer to any [intelligence] agency, the said agency should respond” through the AGP.
The hearing
At the outset of the hearing, CJP Isa clarified that prior to the last hearing, the SC’s bench formation committee had “decided that all available judges in Islamabad should immediately convene”.
“There was no pick and choose; whoever was available was put together,” he observed, noting that Justice Afridi had recused himself. Recalling that he had hinted at a full court, Justice Isa said that it could not be convened as two judges were unavailable.
The top judge noted that there was “so much polarization in the country” and “people may not be so interested in the independence of the judiciary but in their own particular viewpoint to prevail”. Reiterating his remarks from the previous hearing, Justice Isa reiterated that “attacks” against ex-CJP Jillani were “upsetting”.
“If somebody can impose a will upon this court, that is also interference. Interference can be from within, from without, from intelligence agencies, from your colleagues, from your family members, from social media, from everybody else,” CJP Isa said...
During the hearing, the top judge also remarked that he was “not responsible for the history of the Supreme Court. I am only responsible from the day I became chief justice. I have gone ahead with an inclusive approach.”
The chief justice asked AGP Awan if he had gone through the recommendations made by the IHC judges, to which the latter replied in the negative. Justice Isa then asked Awan about how to proceed with the matter.
Here, Justice Minallah remarked: “These are not recommendations or suggestions but a charge sheet.”
After the AGP read the proposals out loud, CJP Isa observed, “We should not interfere in the high court’s work. The results of interference in high courts’ matters have not been good in the past.”
Justice Minallah noted that the IHC judges had alleged “continuous meddling” and asked if their recommendations were unanimous. Awan replied that it seemed so, at which the judge observed that no judge had disagreed.
The SC then ordered that the proposals made by the IHC judges be made public. Justice Isa said, “When everything is airing on the media, we may make this public as well.”
When the chief justice asked if a high court was not empowered by the Constitution to implement the said suggestions, AGP Awan replied that it had the authority to take action on all the points…
At this point during the hearing, Justice Minallah emphasized: “If the state becomes the aggressor against a judge, that is what all the high courts are highlighting and that is a serious matter.
“The high court of Lahore is endorsing what the IHC has said […] and we all know that it is happening and has happened,” he added.
Justice Minallah highlighted that the judges “fear reporting” such incidents. In an apparent reference to IHC’s Justice Babar Sattar , he said: “Since the last hearing, what has happened to an IHC judge? His personal data which cannot be accessed by a private person was put on social media.”
“That is an intimidation,” he observed.
“The state is to protect the judges and independence of the judiciary. When it becomes the aggressor, which each high court is saying; that is what is the issue and it is happening.
“It is a phenomenon that has happened for the last 76 years and this is what each high court is endorsing. It is happening today,” Justice Minallah observed.
Justice Shah noted that the matter had landed before the SC and questioned if the apex court could “just brush aside” the matter.
“We should empower the high courts. We are, by interfering in this matter, actually empowering the high courts, the district judiciary, the entire judiciary; I don’t think it’s interference in any matter,” he observed.
Justice Shah noted there was a need to “lay down a court which is a clear firewall against all sorts of excesses” and that a “system” needed to be put in place rather than dealing with individual incidents… - Dawn
Courtesy Dawn
Back to Pakistanlink Home