The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has questioned the credibility of the CJP, demanding he exclude himself from the Suo-motu hearing over the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges’ letter. Many believe the party is behind the social media campaign against the chief justice.
The Supreme Court in addition to the primary case also heard 11 separate pleas seeking to become parties in these proceedings. The CJP stated that a committee decided that all available judges would hear this case. He said a full court was thought to hear this case, but two judges are unavailable. “People probably do not want the independence of the judiciary, but we will ensure independence of this court.”
He stated a chief justice should not ask a judge to deal with a case in a specific manner, adding that the independence of the judiciary was also compromised by appointing a monitoring judge and creating a JIT against the law. “Ever since I became the CJP, not a single case of interference has come before me,” he reiterated “I would not allow any interference in the judiciary.” He said no attack on the court from within or outside be made. The CJP observed the suggestions of the IHC be made public stating “Everything is already being broadcast on the media, so these IHC suggestions should also be made public.”
The Attorney General at this order read out the IHC’s recommendations. The CJP questioned if the high court could take steps according to the constitution on what it has recommended. The AGP replied positively. The CJP noted the SC could not interfere in the high court’s matters, as in the past, the results of such interventions were not proved positive.
The AGP at court orders also read the suggestions that all the provincial high courts and subordinate courts have sent to the SC. The LHC suggested that judges’ meetings with members of the intelligence agencies must be banned and amendments be made to the code of conduct for higher courts and subordinate judiciary. It proposed an authority to be given to high courts to appoint and transfer NAB and ATC judges. The LHC also disclosed that intervention by the executive in the judiciary is an open secret.
The CJP noted that a chief justice should not ask a judge to deal with a case in a specific manner. “Ever since I became the CJP, not a single case of interference has come before me.” Mr. Justice Faiz Isa questioned if there was no intervention when bar presidents sat in the chambers of the judges of the subordinate judiciary. Justice Minallah agreed with the CJP stating there should not be such interference from within.
“We have to solve the internal matter ourselves,” he remarked. “When the state becomes aggressive against a judge, it becomes a different matter,” he observed.
Justice Minallah questioned what happened to a judge of the IHC since the last hearing of this bench on this matter, as the personal data of that judge, not accessible to any private person, was leaked on social media. “All high courts have upheld the existence of interference and saying it is continuing even today,” he said. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that this case should be taken as an opportunity and be resolved once and for all.
Justice Mandokhail stated two members of this bench even were also being targeted. The district judiciary suggested actions against those involved in phone tapping or video recording of judges and their families. It suggested contempt of court proceedings be initiated by judges if state agencies are found blackmailing.
It said if a chief justice, district, and sessions judge, or any judge could summon CCTV recordings. If a session judge does not conduct proceedings, then it should be reported to the high court which could constitute a bench on it. This judicial branch suggested more that such reports of a high court judge, the chief justice of Pakistan should be looked into. The senior judge – Justice Mansoor Ali Shah – observed that everyone has become courageous because of this case, and it will bring surprising results. Justice Minallah said the Baluchistan High Court states “Interference was always there as it is continuing for the last 76 years.” The CJP said not to include him -CJP- in the statement about 76 years.
Justice Minallah said he didn’t condemn everyone, adding that he was the chief justice of a high court for four years, and there was no interference at all. “During my tenure, no other judge of the high court was approached,” he stated. Justice Musarrat Hilali observed that those who could not bear the pressure should not sit on this chair. Justice Minallah said that if a judge shows some courage, a reference is filed against him. He inquired what action had been taken in the justice Shaukat Siddiqui case.
The AGP replied a former chief justice was involved in it. Justice Minallah maintained there should be accountability, whether it is a former chief justice or the current one. Justice Afghan Akhtar Naeem remarked that agencies operating in the country like IB, ISI, and MI and the court should be informed under which law they were formed and were operating. The senior Puisne judge said the high courts were looking at the SC to do something. At this, the CJP said there should be no interference in the high courts.
Justice Shah questioned if any of the high courts asked the apex court not to take up this case. “When the SC sends an indirect message, it creates problems,” he added. The CJP remarked that he had said intelligence agency reports would not be considered in judges’ appointments and that they would not be part of the judicial commissions. “Those who talk about the independence of the judiciary may not know this, the CJP observed.
Justice Mansoor said intelligence agencies should respond in this case, Justice Minallah said agencies should be asked to submit an affidavit that there was no interference. Mr. Chief Justice said they should not get into endless debates, adding that the agencies were under the federal government, which could file a response.
Importantly when yesterday this SC’s bench was hearing the IHC judges’ letter, the PTI stalwarts – former chief minister Gilgit-Baltistan Khalid Khursheed, PTI’s Core Committee member advocate Abuzar Salman Niazi, and the party’s central information secretary Raoof Hasan – in a press conference questioned the proceedings of the apex court. They expressed complete dismay over the conduct of the CJP and demanded a full court excluding the CJP. In a demand cum advice, they said that this matter be heard by a full court as per the constitution and Mr. Justice Faiz Isa should disassociate himself from hearing on the said letter. Central Information Secretary PTI said that six judges of the IHC inked this letter to the CJP and in turn, he -CJP – referred it to the executive to form a commission and investigate this matter.
They alleged the CJP had committed a crime after he referred this matter to a prime minister already implicated in this letter. In their view, the entire judiciary is standing on one side about the interference in judicial affairs, and the CJP kept on saying that there was no meddling in the judiciary during his time. They alleged that Justice Isa is not proceeding on this matter following the constitution of Pakistan. Saying much more about Mr. Justice Isa, they concluded that Imran Khan is the only true leader concerned about the rights of the people in Pakistan. They alleged that the SC was not fixing several of the PTI’s petitions including on May 9 incidents and reserved seats. The independence of the judiciary could not be ensured if decisions against the powerful were not taken, they added. This powerful indirectly is the military establishment of Pakistan when vied what PTI has been stating about the military.
The PTI has questioned that when Justice Qazi Faiz Isa penned a letter to the former CJP – Umar Ata Bandial- that by not filling two vacant posts of judges in SC, he committing an unconstitutional act when SC had 53000 cases in pendency. Why is this act now constitutional when there are 57000 pending cases in it and three vacancies of judges are yet lying vacant? Is it not a defection from the constitution of Pakistan?” It also questioned “why Justice Faiz Isa is not hearing petitions on military courts waiting for five months while earlier he was against these courts of the military? Why was the Peshawar High Court Chief Justice not inducted into the SC despite he was a senior judge?” It is up to the courts now that how they answer to the questions.
Some believe the PTI is looking to invite martial law in the country. The PTI has already announced that it is not ready to negotiate with the military and the government and now is after the CJP. Despite all these fronts it is demanding Khan’s release and is all to support a letter of judges which has nothing to do with it.
Some claim the PTI did not uphold the independence of the judiciary when justice was being comprised in the tenures of both former chief justices- Justice (Retd) Saqib Nisar and Umar Atta Bandial and Mr. Khan himself was prime minister. When the apex court is hearing a matter then why did the PTI launch a campaign against the CJP, they question.
Is it, not something to influence the court that PTI is vigorously demanding? Some observers say martial suits PTI in many ways whether it is through pressurizing the court to seek a ruling against the army and intelligence agencies or by challenging the writ of the state through agitative protests.
“PTI believes that attacking economic efforts can invite the military to impose martial law and in this regard letter to the IMF and suggestions to the Saudi delegation are important.
“It appears from this campaign that PTI was expecting an anti-establishment decision from the CJP, but so far, the mood of the court is not reflecting that all. PTI looks more concerned about the judges’ letter than about 57000 pending cases in the Supreme Court. Why PTI is not taking it seriously as the second most senior judge after the CJP in a conference said that the superior courts in Pakistan receive 3000 cases daily and lower courts receive 1000 daily,” said a pro-government lawyer.
The PTI has been in power in the past and even then, Pakistan was in need of 90,000 more judges as per the size of the country’s population. A judge of the apex court in that conference at Lahore also pointed out that currently, courts in Pakistan have more than two million cases awaiting decision. What PTI did it in its tenure on these issues is a question that persists.
Senior journalist Rana Kashif has authored this opinion
