Islamabad: A day after objections were raised against the five judges appointed by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial to hear the petitions against the high-powered judicial commission set up by the federal government to investigate the audio leaks related to the judiciary. Later, the commission also expressed concerns on Wednesday. Regarding the bench
“It would not be appropriate for this bench to hear these petitions,” read the reply submitted by the Judicial Commission before the hearing – headed by Supreme Court Justice Qazi Faiz Isa.
A 5-member bench of the Supreme Court has been constituted to hear the petitions under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Bandial and this bench includes Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed.
In the petitions filed by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Abid Shahid Zuberi, SCBA Secretary Muqtadir Akhtar Shabbir, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and Advocate Riaz Hanif Rahi. The Supreme Court has been requested to annul the commission’s decision. Formation illegal.
During the last hearing, the court suspended the federal government’s notification against the formation of the commission while stopping the proceedings of the commission.
It had also issued notices to the government and the commission regarding the enquiry, objecting that the Chief Justice was not consulted on the formulation of the enquiry.
Today’s hearing
At the start of the hearing, Chief Justice Bandyal said that the court will add some new petitions filed in the case and will first hear the petition of the Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP).
The Chief Justice said that the bench will hear the arguments of the Attorney General on the objections. The objections were not decided at the previous hearing.
He further said that the arguments on the new applications will be heard next week.
During the hearing, PTI’s counsel said that the federal government accused the party of discussing the case on TV shows.
Addressing the allegations, the lawyer said the party was only “defending” the Supreme Court.
“Everyone saw what happened outside the Supreme Court’s doors,” Shaheen said, referring to the Jamiat Ulema Islam Fazal (JUI-F) sit-in earlier this month.
On this, the Chief Justice assured the lawyer that he would listen to all their issues.
“The Attorney General’s application has not been filed yet,” Chief Justice Bandyal said, adding that the application was not allotted a registration number.
He then directed the AGP to provide copies of the government’s application to all concerned parties.
Immediately after proceedings resumed, the hearing was adjourned until next week.
Chief Justice Bundyal adjourned the hearing saying “[We] will hear the case sometime in the next week.”
Commission’s reply
Before today’s hearing, Commission Secretary Hafizullah Khajak submitted a reply to the notice of the Supreme Court.
In its reply, the Commission wondered why its proceedings were stayed without giving it any notice about the matter and why it was not heard before the injunction was issued.
The reply said that the proceedings of the commission were stopped without hearing the inquiry commission.
Furthermore, the commission’s reply pointed out that no other member of the alleged audio leaks had filed a petition in the Supreme Court or objected to the commission, adding that several people had confirmed that they had no information on the inquiry. No objection.
To the Supreme Court’s contention that the commission is usurping the powers of the Supreme Judicial Council as it is the role of the council to inquire into the affairs of the judiciary, the reply said that the commission has already clarified its position on Article 209. meeting.
In the reply, it was said that it was clarified that the action of the commission should not be considered as the action of the Supreme Judicial Council.
Moreover, in a detailed 26-page reply, the commission questioned the suitability of the existing bench to hear the matter.
Taking the same line as the federal government in its application yesterday, the commission said: “The oath taken by the Chief Justices and judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts requires them to act in accordance with the Constitution of the Islamic Republic. Pakistan and Law
They are also required to ‘abide by the code of conduct issued by the Supreme Judicial Council’ and not allow their ‘personal interest’ to influence their ‘official conduct’ or ‘official decisions’.”
The response said that a judge should “strongly decline” to act in a self-interested case.
Defending the commission, the reply said that it has no vested interest in the inquiry and that it is mandated by law.
“The commission will fulfill its responsibility in accordance with the constitution and law,” it said, adding that the objections raised by the concerned parties would be taken into consideration.
Moreover, the Commission also objected to the procedure for constituting the 5-member bench.
In reply, it was said that the matter of bench formation was not placed before the Judges Committee.
In the light of these points, the commission took a position that it would be better if the 5-member bench adjourned the hearing until the formation of the bench by the judicial committee.
Registrar’s Office returns govt’s petition
The Registrar’s Office returned the federal government’s application objecting to the inclusion of Chief Justice Bandyal, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Muneeb Akhtar in the five-member bench.
Citing “conflict of interest”, the government had requested that he recuse himself from the bench.
However, today the registrar’s office returned the applications and said: “Apply in open court”.
The federal government filed a petition against the three judges a day ago and requested that a new bench be constituted to hear the petitions.
A week ago, the federal government constituted a three-member judicial commission under Section 3 of the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act, 2017 to investigate the authenticity of the recent audio leaks and their impact on the independence of the judiciary.
Audio leaks will be investigated.
The Commission was notified to investigate the following audio leaks.
- Call between former Punjab chief minister and an advocate about fixation of some cases before a particular SC bench.
- Call between former Punjab chief minister and a sitting apex court judge.
- Call between former chief justice of Pakistan Saqib Nisar and a senior lawyer.
- Call between a lawyer and a journalist on the outcome of a case before a particular SC bench.
- Call between former prime minister Khan and his party colleague about their links in the apex court.
- Call between mother-in-law of CJP Umar Ata Bandial and wife of a lawyer regarding SC cases and conversation about an unconstitutional rule.
- Call between ex-CJP Nisar’s son Najam Saqib and his friend mentioning his father in a political role.
