Justice Minallah sees interference in judiciary: CJP says a complaining judge shouldn’t be here

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Qazi Faez Isa has said he does not agree to Justice Athar Minallah’s arguments about interference in the judiciary. “And if it is happening, a judge complaining about this should not be here and stay home. The court has the authority to take a suo motu notice.”

A six-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Justice Isa heard a suo motu case on Tuesday on a letter written by six judges of the Islamabad High Court, alleging the interference of intelligence agencies in judicial affairs. Other members of the bench were Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Athar Minallah Justice Musarat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

During the course of hearing, Justice Mansoor stressed evolving a system whereby a judge could exercise his professional obligation without any intimidation and interference, saying that the system would make him stronger. He observed that there was no tablet available in the market that could make a judge stronger but a vibrant system. “We have to devise such a system wherein when a judge takes stand for protecting the independence of judiciary and dares raise his voice against any interference, the whole judiciary should stand behind him, but if a judge is compromised, he could be removed in minutes.”

Justice Minallah observed that in 2018, the biggest challenge before high court judges was when the Supreme Court of Pakistan was in complicity.

Shahzad Shaukat, President of Supreme Court Bar Association, objected to the remarks of Justice Minallah over the complicity of judges of the supreme court, adding that such types of remarks could erode the confidence of public in the judiciary.

The chief justice asked Shaukat whether he wanted to say that those judges should not sit here and go home. Justice Minallah responded that not only he but the attorney general had also said this. He said interference in the judiciary was a fact, adding that for 76 years, lies were being told in this country. “Why are we scared and reluctant to tell the truth? We have to accept interference in the judiciary.”

Shaukat recommended the court to regulate social media and take action on the trolling of judges besides initiating contempt proceedings on interference in the judiciary.

Justice Minallah observed that the interference in the judiciary was neither stopped through the Faizabad Dharna case nor by any other measure.

The chief justice said when a commissioner told a lie, the media highlighted it, but nobody asked for the evidence.

Meanwhile, in pursuance of the court’s earlier order, the federal government could not submit its reply over the recommendations given by judges of high courts regarding the interference of intelligence agencies alleged by Islamabad High Court judges. Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan sought a day to file the government response on the matter and said the written order of the previous hearing had not yet been received. “I have to communicate to the prime minister and the secretary Defence for submitting the response so I need a copy of the court’s last order.”

At this, the chief justice asked the court staff whether the order was signed, if not, why? He said the court had written the order in the open court. The AG submitted that if the order was received, the government would file its response by today (Wednesday). When the AG was having difficulty in reading the handwritten note of Justice Minallah, he himself read it, in which it was said that the federal government controlled the agencies, hence it should respond to allegations of IHC judges as well the recommendations of the judges of all high courts. He asked that the federal government should clarify its position as the high court judges pointed out that the interference was still ongoing. “Therefore, it is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that there is no interference,” he noted.

Meanwhile, the petitioner’s counsel appeared before the court. Hamid Khan said he would be representing the Lahore High Court Bar Association and the Balochistan High Court Bar Association. Ahmed Hussain said he would represent Barrister Aitezaz Ahsen, Shahzad Shaukat Supreme Court Bar Association, Abid S Zubairi Supreme Court Bar Association, Barrister Salahuddin Sindh Bar Council, Ahmed Hassan Shah Islamabad High Court Bar Association, Ahsen Bhoon Punjab Bar Council and Riyazat Ali Sehr Pakistan Bar Council.

The chief justice raised a question about the submission of separate petitions by the lawyers and bars to which Ahsan Bhoon said this would happen when the court allowed the lawyers to be heard individually. He told the court that they had unanimously passed a resolution in this regard and asked what kind of tradition was being created by giving the permission to listen?

The chief justice said: “We are not creating a tradition, we believe in democracy.” Justice Minallah said disagreement was the beauty of democracy, adding that the opposition was more important in the parliament than treasury benches.

Pakistan Bar Council Vice Chairman Riazat Ali Sahar submitted that kidnapping a judge’s brother-in-law, throwing crackers in a sessions judge’s house and installing cameras for spying in judges’ bedrooms were serious allegations related to criminal offences and could be dealt through Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). He recommended a judicial inquiry into the matter and asked that a judicial commission consisting of one or more serving judges of the supreme court should be formed to identify and punish the people responsible for that.

Justice Minallah said the six judges of the Islamabad High Court said and all high court judges confirmed that interference was taking place. One high court judge established it as a fact and opined that interference in the judiciary was subversion of the Constitution. He recommended contempt proceedings for interference in the judiciary.

Ahmed Hasan Shah gave arguments and said internal and external interference in the judiciary should be examined. The chief justice said: “We cannot change what happened in the last 50 years, we can only sympathize.”

Ahmed recommended establishing a communication system in the judiciary and said that cutting the neck did not establish the independence of judiciary.

Justice Mansoor observed that when he was the chief justice of a high court, he experienced that if something happened to a civil judge, a sessions judge used to settle the issue without informing the chief justice. “Even if a lawyer hurts any judge, it should come to the knowledge of the high court immediately,” he said.

The chief justice said the issue was not about communication but about not taking a vibrant stand.

Justice Minallah said if the judiciary was united as an institution, the state would not get a chance to interfere. The chief justice asked whether not fixing a case for hearing was also the fault of intelligence agencies. He asked Hamid Khan how many requests for early hearing he filed in the Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui case. He said if a judge complained about interference in judicial affairs instead of taking action, he reduced his authority.

Justice Jamal said: “If we do not work according to the Constitution, people have the right to ask us.”

Justice Minallah said the court had asked the federal government what was happening and who was responsible?.

Justice Jamal said the prime minister was involved in the matter because he was the prime minister.

Later, the court adjourned the hearing with the ruling that the parties concerned would be informed about the next date of hearing.