Judge proposes separate forces for judiciary

Justice Shah says district judiciary delivers justice at grassroots level

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed all five high courts in the country to engage with their respective provincial governments to establish their own security agencies in order to strengthen the independence of the judiciary.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who authored the judgment, highlighted the crucial role played by the district judiciary in shielding ordinary citizens from potential abuses of power by district administrations and local police. However, this function often resulted in tensions between the two entities.

Justice Shah noted that while the security and protection of judges fell within the judiciary's purview, it remained under executive control. He cited past instances where district police officers, dissatisfied with district court decisions, withdrew security provided to district judges.

Justice Shah issued the judgment on an appeal of the assistant commissioner of Kalat, who was found guilty of contempt of court by a two-member bench of the Balochistan High Court (BHC) for illegally detaining a judge.

Justice Shah noted that the incident was related to the independence of the judiciary. He added that the district judiciary protected the people from abuse of powers by the district administration and the police, which created tension between the district judiciary and the district administration.

He said that the time had come for the district judiciary to have its own security. He stressed that the district judiciary should be fully autonomous in all matters, including the district administration and police security, adding that the high courts would take up the matter with their respective provinces.

Read SC caught between a rock and a hard place

The judgment further stated that the high courts should take the contempt of court proceedings against those officers of the district administration, who were involved in illegal proceedings against the district judiciary.

The judgment said that the unconditional apology from an accused proved that he had admitted his wrongdoing but added that the BHC’s pardon and the sentencing was not against the constitutional right to a transparent trial.

Courts generally grant unconditional pardon and dismiss contempt of court proceedings, the judge said, adding that the courts were not always bound by the principle. In some cases, he said, the courts reduced the sentence.

Declaring that the district judiciary was the backbone of the judicial system, the court agreed with the judgment passed by the BHC that arresting a judge without a first information report (FIR) and ill-treatment was tantamount to demeaning the subordinate judiciary.

Justice Shah noted that the district judiciary heard the cases at the front line to deliver justice in extremely difficult situations. He pointed out that according to the 2021 statistics, 82% of pending cases across the country were being heard by the district judiciary.

Since the district judiciary was the main component of the justice system, the judgment said, protection of the district judiciary became indispensable, when the executive, as an institution, weakened or neglected the Judiciary.

The judge emphasised that the judiciary was the guardian of basic human rights, therefore, every attempt to weaken it must be stopped. He added that this principle applied to all – from the subordinate judiciary to the superior judiciary.

The judgment declared that the power of contempt of court was for the defence of the judiciary, judges and the restoration of public confidence. Every such action harmed the public trust, but the judiciary had the right to take contempt of court action.