Treat judges according to law: top court asks govt
Justice Maqbool Baqar says judges more accountable than anyone else
PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
A Supreme Court judge on Friday asked the federal government to treat judiciary in accordance with the law as he noted that judges are even more accountable for their acts than others.
“An impression has been created that judges are above the law. Perhaps we are more accountable than anyone else. I am conveying this on behalf of brother judges that we are not above the law but treat us in accordance with law,” said Justice Maqbool Baqar.
Justice Baqar was responding to the arguments of federal government’s attorney Dr Farogh Naseem as part of a ten-judge full court that on Friday resumed hearing a slew of petitions against a presidential reference filed against Supreme Court judge Qazi Faez Isa.
The reference that was filed with the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) in May last year sought Justice Isa’s removal claiming that he had committed misconduct by not disclosing in his wealth statement his family members properties in the United Kingdom.
Justice Baqar wondered who stopped the federal government from initiating tax proceedings against the petitioner judge’s spouse.
“Why is the government shying away from proceeding [against Justice Isa’s family members] in accordance with tax laws? Questioning the judge to give a money trail [for the properties] is premature. You have to establish that the judge’s source of funds was used to purchase the UK properties,” he said.
During the proceedings, the federal government’s attorney Dr Farogh Naseem once again emphasized that Justice Isa is bound to disclose properties owned by his spouse.
“Failure of the judge to give a money trail is tantamount to misconduct. It is the obligation of the sacred trust. The judge is unable to explain the property of the spouse,” Dr Naseem said. “
He said the SJC is the only forum which can proceed against the judges.
However, Justice Baqar asked which law is violated by Justice Isa.
Dr Naseem cited an Islamic law to establish that the husband has close proximity with his wife. He said husbands are protectors and guardians of their wives and are responsible for them. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed asked him if the same Islamic principle will apply to non-Muslim judges.
Dr Naseem replied that the position will not change because even in Hinduism there is no concept of independence between husband and wife at all. “After all, Hindu wives used to jump into the fire when their husbands were being cremated,” he said.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah told Dr Naseem that he referred to the Islamic law out of context. He wondered if the government’s counsel was implying that women had no legal rights in Pakistan.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial, the presiding judge of the bench, asked the counsel if a judge is answerable to all financial interests of his wife.
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah asked Dr Naseem if there was any research on the principle of proximity that the government counsel is referring to.
He wondered how an agency – the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) – can be established through rules of business. The ARU – formed by the PTI led federal government after it came into power in 2018 – collected evidence about the UK properties of Justice Isa’s family.
Justice Shah also asked as how Justice Isa’s wife can be declared as being dependent on him if she is a tax filer. He also questioned the government’s claim that details of London property can be obtained just by mentioning name of the owner.
Justice Baqar said the principle of proximity cannot be applied in vacuum. He wondered how the federal government can accuse that these are unexplained properties. “Have you ever asked the judge’s spouse to explain the source fund regarding purchase of these properties?” he questioned.
The bench asked the counsel to explain under which law the petitioner judge must explain assets belonging to his wife and why tax authorities don’t simply ask the wife who is an independent tax payer. The hearing of the case has been adjourned until June 15.
A Supreme Court judge on Friday asked the federal government to treat judiciary in accordance with the law as he noted that judges are even more accountable for their acts than others.
“An impression has been created that judges are above the law. Perhaps we are more accountable than anyone else. I am conveying this on behalf of brother judges that we are not above the law but treat us in accordance with law,” said Justice Maqbool Baqar.
Justice Baqar was responding to the arguments of federal government’s attorney Dr Farogh Naseem as part of a ten-judge full court that on Friday resumed hearing a slew of petitions against a presidential reference filed against Supreme Court judge Qazi Faez Isa.
The reference that was filed with the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) in May last year sought Justice Isa’s removal claiming that he had committed misconduct by not disclosing in his wealth statement his family members properties in the United Kingdom.
Justice Baqar wondered who stopped the federal government from initiating tax proceedings against the petitioner judge’s spouse.
“Why is the government shying away from proceeding [against Justice Isa’s family members] in accordance with tax laws? Questioning the judge to give a money trail [for the properties] is premature. You have to establish that the judge’s source of funds was used to purchase the UK properties,” he said.
During the proceedings, the federal government’s attorney Dr Farogh Naseem once again emphasized that Justice Isa is bound to disclose properties owned by his spouse.
“Failure of the judge to give a money trail is tantamount to misconduct. It is the obligation of the sacred trust. The judge is unable to explain the property of the spouse,” Dr Naseem said. “
He said the SJC is the only forum which can proceed against the judges.
However, Justice Baqar asked which law is violated by Justice Isa.
Dr Naseem cited an Islamic law to establish that the husband has close proximity with his wife. He said husbands are protectors and guardians of their wives and are responsible for them. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed asked him if the same Islamic principle will apply to non-Muslim judges.
Dr Naseem replied that the position will not change because even in Hinduism there is no concept of independence between husband and wife at all. “After all, Hindu wives used to jump into the fire when their husbands were being cremated,” he said.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah told Dr Naseem that he referred to the Islamic law out of context. He wondered if the government’s counsel was implying that women had no legal rights in Pakistan.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial, the presiding judge of the bench, asked the counsel if a judge is answerable to all financial interests of his wife.
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah asked Dr Naseem if there was any research on the principle of proximity that the government counsel is referring to.
He wondered how an agency – the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) – can be established through rules of business. The ARU – formed by the PTI led federal government after it came into power in 2018 – collected evidence about the UK properties of Justice Isa’s family.
Justice Shah also asked as how Justice Isa’s wife can be declared as being dependent on him if she is a tax filer. He also questioned the government’s claim that details of London property can be obtained just by mentioning name of the owner.
Justice Baqar said the principle of proximity cannot be applied in vacuum. He wondered how the federal government can accuse that these are unexplained properties. “Have you ever asked the judge’s spouse to explain the source fund regarding purchase of these properties?” he questioned.
The bench asked the counsel to explain under which law the petitioner judge must explain assets belonging to his wife and why tax authorities don’t simply ask the wife who is an independent tax payer. The hearing of the case has been adjourned until June 15.