SC denies reports of scuffle, altercation between judges

Spokesperson describes the social media reports as 'false, mischievous, and malicious'


Our Correspondent April 14, 2023
A general view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Islamabad, Pakistan April 4, 2022. PHOTO: REUTERS

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has refuted an "utterly false" news report regarding an alleged altercation and scuffle between judges of the apex court during their evening walk on Thursday, April 13, 2023 in the Judges Colony Park.

The report, which has been widely circulated through various social media platforms, was described as "false, mischievous, and malicious" in a statement issued on Friday.

According to the Supreme Court spokesperson, no such incident took place, and the fake reporting about the judges of apex court represents a serious violation of the law.

The court further stated that the false report is an effort by disaffected elements to diminish the dignity of the court and its honourable members.

The denial came amid an apparent widening of rift between the legal fraternity.

Read more: Tension with CJP comes to a boil as govt fires SC registrar

CJP Umar Ata Bandial has continued his trend of not including two senior-most judges – Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Sardar Tariq Masood – in SC benches hearing politically sensitive cases when he announced constituting an eight-member larger bench to hear petitions filed against the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Bill, 2023, which curtailed the top judge’s powers to initiate suo motu proceedings and constitute benches on his own.

The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) – the apex regularity body of lawyers – has announced a complete strike and boycott of court proceedings all over the country against the SC hearing.

PBC Executive Committee Chairman Hasan Raza Pasha said the legislation for regulating the CJP’s powers was carried out on the bar’s demand.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ