SC order irks leaks commission head

A judicial commission tasked with probing into some leaked audios involving serving and former judges and their family members on Saturday adjourned its proceedings for an indefinite period in view of an order of the Supreme Court.

The head of the three-man commission, Justice Qazi Faez Isa, however, raised objections to the order issued by a five-judge SC bench on Friday, noting that the Inquiry Commission Act 2017 does not specify that a judicial commission must be formed in consultation with the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP).

The government on May 20 formed a commission, led by Justice Isa and comprising Balochistan High Court (BHC) Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Aamer Farooq to probe into genuineness of the audios and their impact on the independence of the judiciary.

A number of petitioners including former prime minister Imran Khan challenged formation of the commission and a five-judge Supreme Court bench led by CJP Umar Ata Bandial on Friday suspended the probe panel’s proceedings while hearing their petitions.

Read Imran demands commission to probe ‘powerful elements’ behind audio leaks

“Prima facie, the very constitution of the commission is cast in doubt as the government did not consult the chief justice of Pakistan for the nomination of a judge,” read an eight-page order authored by CJP Bandial. The SC bench also noted that permission of the CJP was also required for including two high court judges to the inquiry commission.

Justice Isa, who is the senior most SC judge after CJP Bandial and who is going to be elevated as the country’s top judge in September this year, took exceptions to points raised in the order.

“Where is it written in the Inquiry Commission Act, 2017 that the government must consult with the CJP for forming a judicial commission?” Justice Isa said. “The order said the government acted unilaterally. A government always acts unilaterally.”

Justice Isa also disagreed with the contention that the CJP’s permission is needed to include a high court judge to a judicial commission.

Read more Ex-CJ Nisar under spotlight over audio leaks — again

“Federalism demands that provinces must be independent and autonomous. Such observations by the Supreme Court will destroy federalism,” Justice Faiz Isa said.

“We have to follow the law and not the constitutional tradition,” he added.

Earlier, Justice Isa grilled Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan, asking him as to why he did not raise legal points in the Supreme Court. “You say one thing here and the opposite there.”

Justice Isa also asked him as to why he raised objection to the CJP heading the commission.

During the hearing on Friday, AGP Awan had sought permission to make a preliminary submission, saying that CJP Bandial ought to consider recusing himself from the bench on account of a certain conflict of interest.

Justice Isa asked the AGP as to how the bench issued the order without first issuing notices to the respondents including the commission and hearing arguments of both parties.

“How could the court stop the commission from working without first issuing it a notice? According to the Supreme Court Rules, an order is issued after hearing the parties.”

Justice Isa asked the AGP if the SC had issued him any notice before the hearing or if he was just present in the courtroom on Friday [May26] by chance. “I was told verbally that you should appear in court. A notice was issued to me after the hearing,” the AGP replied.

The judge lamented that the court neither issued any notice to the commission nor formally informed it about the stay order. “One member of the commission has come to Islamabad from Quetta this morning to attend the proceedings. Had we been informed earlier, he would not have been spared of this toil.”

The judge then asked the AGP if the commission was arrayed as a respondent in any of the constitutional petitions filed against the commission. The AGP replied in the affirmative. “The commission has been nominated as respondent in the petitions no 14 and 14/2023.

In view of the fact, the commission later adjourned its proceedings.