We won't interfere in high court affairs, it didn't lead to good consequences in the past: CJP
Pakistan
Observes appointment of 'monitoring judge' is also interference
- Remarks some people are seemingly more interested in promoting their ideals instead of independence of judiciary
- Says interference can be both from within and outside the institution as well as by family members, social media and other sources
- Warns other powers will grow stronger unless parliament isn't made powerful
ISLAMABAD (Web Desk/Dunya News) – Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Tuesday said they would not interfere in the matters related to the high court as the practice in the past didn’t produce good consequences.
“Can a chief justice phone a subordinate judge to order that the verdict should be passed in such a manner?” he asked during the hearing of a suo moto case related to a letter written by the six justices of Islamabad High Court (IHC).
The IHC judges’ letter case is being heard by a six-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Isa and comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
After the culmination of Tuesday’s proceedings, the six-member bench adjourned the hearing till May 7 and asked the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and others to submit their replies containing suggestions on the subject.
MONITORING JUDGE IS ALSO AN INTERFERENCE
“We appoint a ‘monitoring judge’. It is also interference,” the chief justice remarked during the hearing – a reference to Justice Ijazul Ahsan who severed in the same capacity in the Panama Papers cases filed against then prime minister Nawaz Sharif.
It seemed that [some] people wanted to promote their thinking instead of independence of judiciary, the chief justice observed as Attorney General Usman Mansoor Awan presented his arguments while representing the government being the country’s chief law officer.
The chief justice also recalled that he was the first individual to name someone for interference by mentioning Lt-Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed in the Faizabad sit-in case.
One the other hand, Justice Shah observed that one had to determine what action was to be taken against the one interfering in the court affairs.
Calling for erecting a firewall to stop the practice, Justice Shah said they had to sit together for finding a solution.
THEY HAD ALL THE POWERS
During the hearing, the attorney general was of the view that the IHC judges had all the powers required to check the alleged interference, including contempt of court.
Justice Hilali, meanwhile, wondered why the judges from lower courts were seeking permission from the Supreme Court.
CAN ANNUL A LAW BUT CAN’T MAKE A NEW ONE
The chief justice on Tuesday again stressed the need for making the Parliament supreme and observed that there was no civilian supremacy – the remarks in the context of debate on how develop a mechanism to deal with the issue.
“I can annul a law, but cannot make a new one,” said the chief justice who noted that pressure was found everywhere, while citing how bureaucracy is compelled to follow certain orders.
According to the chief justice, the bureaucracy is very weak and has very limited room or choices to deal with interference. However, it isn’t the case with judiciary which enjoys all the necessary powers and the tools to exercise the same.
Other powers will grow stronger, if the parliament isn’t made powerful, the chief justice warned and mentioned that it was a natural consequence of forming JITs (joint investigation teams) and appointment of monitoring judges.
The country’s top judge during the hearing also stopped the attorney general from mentioning the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), saying the Supreme Court and the SJC were two different entities.
Any suggestions could be forwarded to the SJC, if he wanted to, said the chief justice. He was seconded by Justice Shah who remarked that the Supreme Court represented the judicial aspects and could pass any orders, while Justice Minallah said that they could nullify or amend the SJC decisions.
SOURCE OF INTERFERENCE
Chief Justice Isa reminded the audience that he served as the Balochistan High Court chief justice for more than five years and knew how much interference had to be faced, with the most of which coming from the apex court.
However, Justice Minallah noted that he didn’t follow the tradition while serving as the IHC chief justice, while Justice Shah said there was no such thing when headed the Lahore High Court (LHC).
In her comments on the subject, Justice Musarrat Hilali remarked she believed that a person not standing up against interference had no right to occupy the office of judge.
Meanwhile, the chief justice was explicit in explaining the interference phenomenon, saying it can be both from within and outside as well as by intelligence agencies, colleagues, family members, anyone else.
THE 76-YEAR-LONG PARTNERSHIP
At one point, Justice Minallah remarked that the establishment and the judiciary had a 76 years of partnership.
However, the chief justice interrupted and asked him not to include him into this list, adding that no one could mention a single instance of forming a bench to appease anyone.
DATA LEAK AND GOVT POWERS
On this subject, Justice Minallah mentioned that personal data of all the citizens was with different government agencies, but still had been leaked. These remarks were about the information related to IHC Justice Babar Sattar circulating on social media.
At the same time, he remarked that the prime minister was responsible for the actions committed by different departments, institutions and agencies, all of which worked under him.
THE REASON WHY WE ARE HERE
It all started when six IHC judges – Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jehangiri, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Rifat Imtiaz — wrote a letter to the chief justice – who also heads the SJC – over the alleged interference by spy agencies in court affairs.
They sought guidance from the SJC “with regard to the duty of a judge to report and respond to actions on part of members of the executive, including operatives of intelligence agencies, that seek to interfere with discharge of his/her official functions and qualify as intimidation, as well as the duty to report any such actions that come to his/her attention in relation to colleagues and/or members of the courts that the High Court supervises."
Later, the government formed an inquiry commission after Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif consulted Chief Justice Isa. It comprised a chief justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani who first agreed to lead the process, but expressed his inability and mentioned issues related to jurisdiction.
One the same day, the Supreme Court took suo motu notice of the letter and formed a seven-member bench led by Chief Justice Isa himself.
But Justice Yahya Afridi, who was part of the larger bench, recused himself from hearing the suo motu case, taken up under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
It’s a developing story. Details to follow.
