A Supreme Court five-judge larger bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, will hear on June 6 the pleas filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa-led inquiry commission formed by the federal government to investigate into the recently surfaced audio leaks involving the judiciary.
Four petitions were filed against the commission, including by PTI chairman and deposed premier Imran Khan as well as the Supreme Court Bar Association’s (SCBA) president.
The government on May 20 formed a commission, led by Justice Isa and comprising Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, to probe into the veracity of the audios and their impact on the independence of the judiciary.
However, after the petitions were filed against it, the government sought the recusal of the CJP, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar from the bench hearing the case.
It urged the CJP to reconstitute the bench and asked the judges to “graciously consider recusing themselves from the instant petitions”.
It maintained that one of the rules of natural justice was that the adjudicator should be impartial and that Justice Bandial’s inclusion in the bench hearing petitions against the commission, formed to investigate audio leaks “pertaining to a very close family member”, raised concerns regarding objectivity.
After the federal government, the judicial commission also raised objections to composition of the SC bench hearing pleas against the body.
“One of the audio clips allegedly pertains to the mother-in-law of the honorable chief justice [of Pakistan]. Honourable Mr Justice Munib Akhtar may also be mentioned in the said recording,” read a concise statement submitted by the commission’s secretary Hafeezullah Khajjak to the top court.
“And in another audio recording reference is made to case fixation before a particular bench headed by honorable Mr Justice Ijazul Ahsan,” it added.
Earlier on May 26, the SC suspended the commission’s proceedings.
“Prima facie, the very constitution of the commission is cast in doubt as the government did not consult the CJP for the nomination of a judge,” the court’s order read.
The SC’s eight-page order added that it was an accepted and settled constitutional principle, acted upon several times in the constitution of commissions, that whenever a sitting judge was intended to be made a member of the body, the permission of the CJP had to be sought first.
“Since this power was peculiar to the said office, the incumbent for the time being of the same could neither divest himself nor be divested by the federal government from discharging the constitutional duty,” the SC order stated.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ