Pakistan

ZA Bhutto ‘judicial murder’: CJP forms bench to hear reference

Advocate Tariq Asad requests initiation of contempt-of-court proceedings against former CJ Naseem Hassan Shah.

Qaiser Zulfiqar April 09, 2011

ISLAMABAD:

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry has constituted two larger benches and seven other benches of the Supreme Court which will take up important cases, including the presidential reference from next week.

On Monday, a 17-member bench will resume hearing of the National Reconciliation Ordinance review petition. A four-member bench headed by Justice MA Shahid Siddiqui will hear the case of the judges’ extension refused by the parliamentary committee.

On Wednesday, a three-member bench headed by the Chief Justice will hear the presidential reference. A three-member bench headed by Justice Javed Iqbal will resume hearing of the missing persons’ case.

One week after President Asif Ali Zardari sent it to the Supreme Court, the presidential reference for revisiting the case of the ‘judicial murder’ of former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto has been challenged in the apex court.

The petitioner, Advocate Tariq Asad, has requested the court to initiate contempt-of-court proceedings against former chief justice Naseem Hassan Shah for his admission that the death by hanging verdict was issued under pressure from the executive. He has submitted that Shah’s case should be referred to the Supreme Judicial Council for revoking his status.

Tariq has pleaded that once a judgment in a criminal case attains finality, a constitutional reference under Article 186 cannot be filed in the Supreme Court. Filing a constitutional reference 30 years after the verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court is tantamount to deliberately scandalising the court and ridiculing it in the eyes of the public.

Asad said that Shah’s statement instigated President Zardari to file a reference. Expressing regret over the judgment is a violation of the oath of office and the judges’ code of conduct, he wrote in the petition. The benefits of the retired judge should be withdrawn and his photographs removed from all the courtrooms of the apex court. Asad has made former chief justice Naseem Hassan Shah, a respondent in the petition.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 9^th, 2011.

COMMENTS (6)

Amin | 13 years ago | Reply People wants to know who is behind the murder of Shaheed BB ,they are not interested in ZAB judicial murder.

peshawar | 13 years ago | Reply Hay last card may be from Zardari to make fool of jialy. HWat they had while they are alive. Playing with people of pakistan and making fool to poor nation. Elections are approching they will do every shamle ful act. Idiots.Politics on graves of dead people. At least they should give them some respect of their death.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Sehrish Khan | 13 years ago | Reply So this is all personal politics again,,, what about the people, what are yiu doing for them, ppp.

V S S SARMA | 13 years ago | Reply While it is correct to review the ZAB's judicial murder, real murders of Shanawaz and Mutaza Bhutto also should be taken by the same Judiciary.

Naushad Shafkat | 13 years ago | Reply One is a bit surprised that the Chief Justice has constituted a 3 member bench to hear the Presidential Reference to revisit the judgment in the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto murder case. The judgment was handed down by a 7 member split court in 1979. According to established practice only a larger bench would be able to undo a judgment of the same court. So much so that judicial decorum demands that if a judgment of the Indian Supreme Court, on a question of law, comes up for hearing in our Supreme Court and our Court is inclined to differ on the point of law involved, even ad-hoc judges are inducted from various High Courts to constitute a larger bench in order to give weight to the judgment of our Supreme Court. This was done in the Ghulam Sarwar v. Pakistan Railways case in 1956 when the Indian Supreme Court had already decided on the question whether the Railway employees were government servants or the principle of 'master and servant' applied to them. Judges from the High Court were brought to the Supreme Court only for this specific case. The constitution of a 3 member bench is therefore not in line with this practice. With regard to the allegations of Advocate Mr. Tariq Asad one can only say that the Supreme Court is not bound by the principles of "stare decisis" and can over-rule any of its own judgments. On the question of the reference being time barred one need only refer to the case of the senior Mian when our 'most gracious and independent' Chief Justice was pleased to over-rule all objections to the belated appeals filed against his convictions. One only hopes that the Supreme Court would get down to business and not procrastinate in order to undo a great historical injustice to which, unfortunately, the Supreme Court is itself a party - and a guilty one at that!

Foggy | 13 years ago | Reply Advocate Tariq Asad has made a very good point. But what about revisiting a case where a judgement has been passed and much later new evidence arises that shows that the judgement may have been different based on new evidence and requires the case to be reopened? Has justice been done if one cannot revisit the case?

Replying to X