ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Atta Bandyal on Tuesday warned the executive against interfering in the affairs of the Supreme Court.
Criticizing Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Uman Awan, the Supreme Court judge asked how you can say that two judges including the Chief Justice are involved in this matter.
The Chief Justice’s remarks came during the hearing of petitions filed in the Supreme Court against the formation of a high-powered judicial commission that would investigate various audio leaks of members of the judiciary.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed on behalf of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Abid Shahid Zuberi, SCBA Secretary Muqtada. Heard on four separate petitions filed. Akhtar Shabbir, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan and Advocate Riaz Hanif Rahi.
All the petitions have requested the Supreme Court to declare the constitution of the commission illegal.
It should be noted that during the hearing of the petitions on May 28, the same bench had suspended the work of the commission by suspending the notification constituting the bench.
Ahead of today’s hearing, Zuberi submitted several orders of various high courts before the bench, requesting that these documents be taken into consideration for the “proper decision” of the present case.
These orders included earlier decisions of the Supreme Court, Islamabad High Court and Lahore High Court.
‘Conflicts of interest’
At the start of the hearing, AGP Usman began his arguments by discussing the “conflict of interest” of the judges hearing the application.
The chief justice took issue with the “allegation”, saying the Supreme Court is a constitutional office with its own powers.
“No judge can be made a party to a contempt of court petition,” he said, adding that the Chief Justice cannot be asked to leave the bench on the allegations.
He said that the powers of the Chief Justice or the judge cannot be reduced as per the need.
When the AGP said that the government had raised objections against the constitution of the Appellate Bench, the chief justice asked: “How can one debate the assumption that two judges, including the Chief Justice, have personal interests in the case?” There were benefits. ?”
He warned the executive to refrain from interfering with the powers of the court.
He said that we were not even consulted before the formation of the commission.
He then asked the AGP to first prove that his plea could be decided and said: “Objections cannot be raised against judges on mere allegations.”
Government’s stance
Justice Akhtar questioned the government’s right to make the audio leaks public.
He directed the AGP to discuss the commission’s terms of reference (TORs), and asked: “Is the government insisting that the audios are genuine?”
He then asked the AGP if it was true that the hacker had leaked the audio and the minister had made it public by holding a press conference.
Interior Minister held a press conference regarding audio leaks, was the matter related to him? He wondered whether the audio should have been made public without a thorough investigation.
“According to the law, can a public official impeach a judge before verifying the facts?” he asked.
When the AGP defended the government, saying that the ministers’ statements could not be attributed to the government, Justice Akhtar asked: “Aren’t the government’s policy and the ministers’ statements the same?”
He further said that if a minister speaks of his own will, it will be a statement of the cabinet.
What is the status of the application after everything said in the ministerial press conferences? he asked.
‘Find Indibell’
The chief justice then asked whether the government had used its resources to find out where and how the audios were being recorded.
AGP Usman replied that the government has set up a commission to conduct a thorough investigation into the audios, including who recorded them and how.
On this, Chief Justice Bandyal asked, “Did you find out anything about Indibell?” “Check Indibell’s twitter handle, is he working outside the country or inside?” he asked.
He then raised concerns that anyone could use Indibell to spread false news against judges.
Justice Akhtar said that there are negative aspects of social media.
Simple coincidences
After the AGP, Zubiri’s lawyer Shoaib Shaheen presented his arguments, saying that the government did not include the investigation into the source of the audio leaks in the TORs.
Moreover, he said, the audios were deemed authentic and the independence of the judiciary was believed to have been compromised.
“All the audios started coming after the suo motu notices [taken by the Supreme Court] about the Punjab elections,” Shaheen pointed out.
Shaheen further alleged that the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) was not monitoring the broadcasts.
“[IHC judge] Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani banned the airing of the audio-video leaks,” he said, adding, “However, despite the ban, the leaked audios were aired, and Pemra took no notice”.
He said that an attempt was made to defame the judiciary.
“Parliament passed a resolution suspending the Supreme Court verdict and the constitution,” he said.
‘The Last Hope’
The petitioner’s lawyer said that the Supreme Court is the last hope for justice.
Drawing the bench’s attention to the PTI political activists who were being arrested and tried in courts, he said: “There is a worst violation of fundamental rights in the country. People look to the Supreme Court. have been.”
