Justice Isa seeks live coverage of plea proceedings

Says respondents carried out a propaganda drive against him and his family

ISLAMABAD:

Supreme Court judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa has requested the apex court to allow live TV coverage of the proceedings of his review petition against the majority judgment that had referred the matter of his family’s properties to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) for inquiry.

“The hearing of this matter be broadcast live on television because the official respondents disclosed confidential matters affecting the petitioner [Justice Isa] and his family, then had them broadcast/published, then carried out a relentless propaganda campaign against them and prohibited the media/press petitioner from broadcasting and publishing his and his family’s version," read the petition filed by the judge.

A six-judge larger bench led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial will take up the matter on December 8.

Justice Isa also stated in his petition that as the Supreme Court in its verdict had expressed concerns over his family’s foreign properties, it should have directed all those in the government (officials of the civilian government and the armed forces including retired ones) and those holding constitutional offices (including present and former judges) to declare the foreign assets of their spouses and children if they owned any and directed the FBR to issue notices to each of them to ensure discrimination did not take place as mandated by Article 25 of the constitution.

“However, if the Hon’ble Judges who passed the said order and its detailed reasons decide not to do so then they should most respectfully recall their said order and its detailed reasons passed against the petitioner, his wife and his children," the petition read.

The judge contended that the majority judgment could not restrict itself to him and his family alone but must be extended to every serving and retired chief justice, judges of the Supreme Court, chief justice and judge of every high court and their wives and children.

"However, in restricting their scope to the petitioner and his family, with utmost respect, is not sustainable. If it is contended that the Constitution and the law can be selectively applied to just one judge and his family it would constitute blatant discrimination and would be in utter disregard of the Fundamental Right of equality of treatment guaranteed by Article 25 of the Constitution."

Justice Isa further argued that his fate as a Supreme Court judge had been reduced and made subject to the decision of an FBR officer, who is under the direct control of the executive, which is committed to his removal.

The judge stated that Articles 177 and 193 respectively prescribed the qualifications for the appointment of a judge of the Supreme Court and the high courts and did not stipulate that an incumbent must be familiar with their non-dependent spouse’s and adult-children’s financial status and ownership of properties and/or to declare them.

“However, the said order and its detailed reasons have mandated this  and did so retrospectively; which with utmost respect could not have been done because it rewrites Articles 177 and 193, constituting a contravention of the Constitution, which merits review.”