Earlier, the ISI through the Ministry of Defence secretary and federation through the Ministry of Interior had approached the IHC against Justice Siddiqui's order passed on July 18. PHOTO: EXPRESS/FILE
IHC's division bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb allowed the country's premier intelligence agency petition, requesting the court to expunge several paragraphs from the order of Justice Siddiqui wherein he asked the army chief and the top spymaster to stop meddling in the affairs of other departments, besides expressing concerns over manipulation of judicial proceedings.
The order came after Islamabad's Advocate General Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri informed the bench that IHC Chief Justice Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi has denied the allegations levelled against him by the other judge.
He said the IHC's top judge has rejected the allegations of interference of the ISI in the judicial proceedings, especially, in the constitution of benches.
The AG informed the bench that Chief Justice Kasi through the IHC registrar has conveyed him that no one has ever approached the IHC regarding the constitution of the benches, adding he never allowed any interference of any person or institution in the judicial proceedings.
No prestigious institutions, IHC judge tells ISI
In addition, Jahangiri said, Justice Kasi has never taken instruction from any quarter while working as sessions judge or after his elevation to IHC.
Subsequently, the bench accepted the Intra-Court Appeal (ICA), expunged the remarks from the order sheet and disposed of the case.
Earlier, the ISI through the Ministry of Defence secretary and federation through the Ministry of Interior had approached the IHC against Justice Siddiqui's order passed on July 18.
Assistant Attorney General Khawaja Muhammad Imtiaz filed the appeal and stated that the single-member bench while hearing a habeas corpus petition unnecessarily dragged the premier intelligence agency in the controversy.
Among other things, Justice Siddiqui had specifically observed how cases are marked to different judges on the directions of such elements.
"Everyone knows how proceedings are manipulated, from where strings are pulled and when power wielded and manoeuvred to achieve desired results," he stated.
"It is a matter of great concern that even benches are constituted and cases are marked to different benches on the direction of such elements."
The order added that "to remain like a silent spectator is against the oath made by every judge provided by the constitution," he said, adding in case of failure the Pakistani nation and history will not remember the judges with good names.
In the intra-court appeal (ICA), Ahmed stated that Justice Siddiqui's remarks are "not only unsubstantiated and unfounded but also [constitute a] direct attack/allegation on the appellants, the institution of Pak Army, judiciary" and specifically the IHC's chief justice and other judges.
Earlier, petitioner Mohammad Iftikhar Raja, who had filed the petition before the IHC, said his brother Rabnawaz was abducted by the spy agencies.
However, when produced before Justice Siddiqui on July 18, Rabnawaz stated that he went to Vehari on his own. On the other hand, Raja said that his brother was under immense fear and belied before the court.
In a written order, Justice Siddiqui had said abduction of people from different walks of life had become a routine in Islamabad, but instead of performing their statutory duty the police came up with a stereotyped stance that persons might have disappeared on their own.
The judge had said such statements were always made in those cases in which allegations were levelled against the intelligence agencies, adding that it was a sorry state of affairs and a challenge to the state.
Petitioners had requested the court to set aside relevant paragraphs of the impugned order, declare that no abduction was carried out by any law enforcement agency and respondents' petition be dismissed with cost.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ