Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Qazi Faez Isa, has expressed his disagreement with Justice Athar Minallah’s stance on judicial interference. According to Justice Isa, if such interference is indeed occurring, a judge who complains about it should not be a part of the judiciary and should instead stay at home. He further emphasized that the court possesses the power to initiate a suo motu notice in such cases.
A larger bench of the apex court, consisting of six members and headed by Justice Isa, heard a suo motu case on Tuesday regarding a letter written by six judges of the Islamabad High Court. The letter alleged interference by intelligence agencies in judicial affairs. The other members of the bench included Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarat Hilali, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.
During the hearing, Justice Mansoor emphasized the need for a system that allows judges to fulfill their professional obligations without any intimidation or interference. He stated that such a system would make judges stronger. He also pointed out that there is no magic solution available in the market to make judges stronger, but a robust system can achieve that. He further stated that a system should be devised where if a judge takes a stand to protect the independence of the judiciary and raises his voice against interference, the entire judiciary should support him. However, if a judge is compromised, he should be removed swiftly.
Justice Minallah noted that in 2018, the biggest challenge faced by high court judges was the complicity of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Shahzad Shaukat, the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, objected to Justice Minallah’s remarks about the complicity of Supreme Court judges. He stated that such remarks could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
The chief justice asked Shaukat if he was suggesting that those judges should not be present and should go home. Justice Minallah responded that not only he, but even the attorney general had made similar statements. He stated that interference in the judiciary is a reality and has been happening for 76 years in this country. He questioned why there is fear and reluctance to acknowledge the truth and accept interference in the judiciary.
Shaukat suggested that the court should regulate social media and take action against the trolling of judges, in addition to initiating contempt proceedings for interference in the judiciary.
Justice Minallah noted that interference in the judiciary was not halted by the Faizabad Dharna case or any other measures.
The chief justice pointed out that when a commissioner lied, the media reported it, but no one asked for evidence.
Following the court’s previous order, the federal government failed to submit its response to the recommendations made by high court judges regarding alleged interference by intelligence agencies, as highlighted by Islamabad High Court judges. Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan requested a day to file the government’s response, stating that the written order from the previous hearing had not been received. “I need a copy of the court’s last order to communicate with the prime minister and the secretary of Defense for submitting the response.”
In response, the chief justice inquired with the court staff about the signed order, questioning why it had not been signed yet. The AG mentioned that once the order was received, the government would submit its response by Wednesday. When the AG had difficulty reading Justice Minallah’s handwritten note, the justice read it aloud himself, emphasizing that the federal government controlled the agencies and therefore should respond to the allegations made by IHC judges and the recommendations of all high court judges. He stressed that it was the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that there was no interference, as pointed out by the high court judges.
In the meantime, the lawyer representing the petitioner appeared before the court. Hamid Khan stated that he would be representing both the Lahore High Court Bar Association and the Balochistan High Court Bar Association. Ahmed Hussain mentioned that he would represent Barrister Aitezaz Ahsen, Shahzad Shaukat from the Supreme Court Bar Association, Abid S Zubairi from the Supreme Court Bar Association, Barrister Salahuddin from the Sindh Bar Council, Ahmed Hassan Shah from the Islamabad High Court Bar Association, Ahsen Bhoon from the Punjab Bar Council, and Riyazat Ali Sehr from the Pakistan Bar Council.
The chief justice raised a concern regarding the submission of separate petitions by the lawyers and bars. Ahsan Bhoon responded by stating that this would occur when the court allowed the lawyers to present their arguments individually. He informed the court that they had unanimously passed a resolution on this matter and questioned the kind of precedent being set by granting permission to listen.
The chief justice replied, “We are not establishing a precedent, we believe in democracy.” Justice Minallah added that disagreement was an essential aspect of democracy, emphasizing that the opposition held greater significance in the parliament than the ruling party.
Riazat Ali Sahar, Vice Chairman of the Pakistan Bar Council, submitted that the alleged incidents of kidnapping a judge’s brother-in-law, throwing fireworks at a sessions judge’s residence, and installing surveillance cameras in judges’ bedrooms were serious criminal offenses. He suggested initiating a judicial inquiry into the matter and proposed the formation of a judicial commission, consisting of one or more serving judges from the supreme court, to identify and punish those responsible.
Justice Minallah stated that all six judges of the Islamabad High Court confirmed that interference was indeed occurring. One judge even declared it as a fact and expressed the opinion that interference in the judiciary amounted to the subversion of the Constitution. He recommended initiating contempt proceedings against those involved in interfering with the judiciary.
Ahmed Hasan Shah presented arguments emphasizing the need to examine internal and external interference in the judiciary. The chief justice expressed that it is not possible to alter the events of the past 50 years, but only to offer sympathy.
Ahmed proposed the establishment of a communication system within the judiciary, highlighting that resorting to extreme measures does not ensure the independence of the judiciary.
Justice Mansoor recounted his experience as a chief justice of a high court, noting that in the event of an issue involving a civil judge, a sessions judge would resolve it without informing the chief justice. He stressed the importance of promptly informing the high court about any incidents involving lawyers and judges.
The chief justice pointed out that the main issue was not communication, but rather the lack of taking a firm stance.
Justice Minallah suggested that a united judiciary would prevent state interference. The chief justice questioned whether the failure to schedule a case for hearing was also due to intelligence agencies. He inquired from Hamid Khan about the number of requests for early hearing filed in the Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui case. He emphasized that judges should take action against interference in judicial matters instead of simply complaining.
Justice Jamal emphasized the importance of adhering to the Constitution, stating that the public has the right to question the judiciary if it fails to do so.
Justice Minallah mentioned that the court had sought clarification from the federal government regarding the situation and accountability.
Justice Jamal highlighted the involvement of the prime minister in the matter due to his position.
Subsequently, the court adjourned the hearing, with a decision to inform the relevant parties about the next hearing date.
