The Supreme Court calls Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal, asking them to explain their remarks against the judiciary.
A three-member bench, led by CJP Qazi Faez Isa comprising Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan proceeded over a suo-motu, taken a day ago against the independent senator.
Senators Vawda and PML-N’s Talal Chaudhry on Wednesday held separate press conferences, questioning the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges’ claim that intelligence agencies had interfered in judicial affairs.
They stated that without any evidence, no one had the right to point a finger at the institutions.The next day MNA Mustafa Kamal of MQM Pakistan and Awn Chaudhry of the Istehkam-i-Pakistan Party (IPP) also spoke on the judiciary’s alleged shortcomings and called for establishing ethical standards for the judges.Kamal spoke on the dual citizenship of a judge of the IHC and said that the judiciary had set ethical standards for politicians.
In March, six judges of the IHC penned a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council alleging the executive and the intelligence agencies for influencing judicial decisions. Awn Chaudhry said this situation could lead to anarchy in the country and said the judiciary should be held accountable in this regard.
He said, “A judge issues a notice for interference, not a letter.” Faisal Vawda called for an end to targeting institutions. He wrote to the IHC asking for details of correspondence between judges over Justice Babar Sattar. The IHC registrar’s office responded to this letter stating that residency or citizenship doesn’t affect the appointment of a judge. It further said that the conversation between a potential candidate for appointment as a judge and the chief justice, or a senior judge of the court is not recorded.The CJP asked if it was acceptable to undermine the respect of institutions. He observed, “If I have done wrong then name me but I will not allow the judiciary to be targeted. A son cannot be held responsible for his father’s sin. We cannot call the entire Parliament wrong if there is one wrong representative in the parliament. We are aware of the position of our judiciary, but using abusive language is not appropriate. I will never defend those extending martial law. If I have done something wrong, other judges cannot be punished for it. There should be a limit to criticism,” the CJP observed. “If we are in the wrong, then the Supreme Court has admitted its mistake in the case of Bhutto. You worked hard by making a speech, but no one takes the written route for betterment,” the CJP remarked.
The apex court issued notices to both Vawda and Kamal, seeking reply within two weeks. It directed PEMRA for the video recordings and transcripts of these press conferences. The proceedings adjourned till June 5.
(By Rana Kashif)
