ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umer Ata Bandial on Tuesday said that his remarks were misreported and misconstrued on social media.
He made these observations while hearing a petition filed by the PTI chairman challenging the amendments made in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.
A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition.
During the hearing, Attorney General Shahzad Ata Elahi told the court that he had written a letter to Federal Law Minister on the court’s remarks. “Although it was not my job knowing that I may be the next target of criticism, I wrote the letter,” the AG told the court adding that the apex court in its two decisions had already issued guidelines for media reporting.
The AGP further submitted that in the absence of laws with regard to the use of social media, the platform was being used for inciting the institutions against each other.
“We have read your letter and appreciate your efforts in this regard,” the Chief Justice told the AG. The Chief Justice observed that whatever was reported on social media about his remarks was not only misconstrued and misstated but also reflected bias. “I am showing restraint on whatever is reported but the media friends should take the court’s restraint with respect as well,” the CJP remarked.
The Chief Justice recalled that the apex court verdict of 2019 mentions media control. “But I believe in mutual respect, not in media control,” the CJP added.
Meanwhile, the court sought details pertaining to provisions of NAB laws set aside by the courts for being against the Constitution. The Chief Justice directed to submit the complete record on the next date of hearing about the volume of provisions of NAB law set aside by the courts for being ultra vires to the Constitution.
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah questioned how the court will determine that which law attains public importance.
The counsel replied that the argument of public importance could not be the accurate basis for challenging any law in court adding that if the court examines the laws on the basis for being public importance, the court will be flooded with such applications.
“The Constitution does not mention clearly as to which of the cases are of public importance,” the counsel contended.
He further submitted that the petitioner had no locus standi of approaching directly the apex court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution adding that the petitioner should have first approached the high court.
Makhdom Ali Khan submitted that the PTI was the architect of promulgating ordinances and had designed NAB amendments. “And now challenging its own designed amendments is a mala fide of PTI,” the counsel contended.
In this respect, he cited two judgments of the apex court including Watan Party case PLD 2003 SC and Tahirul Qadri case PLD 2013 wherein he submitted that the court had dismissed both the petitions for filing with mala fide intention.
He submitted that the court had held that one who comes to Supreme Court must ensure that the court was approached with bona fide intention.
However, the Chief Justice observed that sometimes one province hails a law and the other criticises it, adding, “In such a situation, anyone could approach the Supreme Court.”
Justice Ijazul Ahsen, another member of the bench, observed it is the Supreme Court that determines about the exercise of its jurisdiction.
The Chief Justice observed that in the past the apex court had transferred the cases, which were pending before the high courts.
Makhdom Ali Khan cited the observation of the four-member SC bench including the CJP, which held that the apex court had no jurisdiction to transfer cases from high court. The court adjourned the hearing for today (Wednesday).
