CJ hints at full court to hear meddling case
In a resolute stance amid allegations of encroachment on judicial independence, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa asserted on Wednesday that any assault on the judiciary's autonomy would be met with zero tolerance.
He hinted also at convening a full court session to address a suo motu case concerning allegations of meddling in judicial affairs by the intelligence apparatus.
"If there's any attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary, I'll be at the forefront, and undoubtedly, my fellow judges will stand beside me. We do not tolerate any form of interference," the CJP asserted.
The SC convened to address the case, stemming from allegations raised by six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), who accused the country's security apparatus of meddling in judicial matters.
A seven-member bench, including CJP Isa and justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Yahya Afridi, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Athar Minallah, Musarrat Hilali, and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, presided over the hearing.
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan accompanied by Hamid Khan representing former prime minister Imran Khan, appeared before the SC. Ahmed Hussain appeared as Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan’s legal counsel, while President of the SC Bar Association (SCBA) Shahzad Shaukat was also present.
The hearing was adjourned until April 29. During the session, CJP Isa hinted at the possibility of convening a full court next time and said that the judges of the apex court would deliberate on the matter further.
Hearing
As the hearing began, Hamid informed the court of his desire to be listed as a respondent in the case. In reply, CJP Isa commented that gone are the days when the chief justice's discretion prevailed.
We have established a committee to schedule cases for hearings."
He observed that the court had yet to receive Hamid’s petition, adding that the committee would deliberate on the matter upon its submission.
The CJP further noted that it was “inappropriate” for petitions to be publicised in the media before filing.
“When we talk about pressure being exerted, is this also exerting pressure on us in a way?” he mused, reiterating his steadfastness against external pressures.
The senior judge also expressed his dissatisfaction with lawyers advocating for a suo motu notice: “The lawyers are saying to take a suo motu [notice]; then they should leave their practice.”
Justice Isa pointed out that Hamid could not be deemed a “representative of lawyers” since the SCBA president already fulfilled that role.
AGP Awan then read out the press release issued by the top court following the meeting between the CJP and PM Shehbaz on March 28.
Justice Isa remembered his meeting with the IHC judges on the day he received their letter. He questioned, "If we hadn't prioritized this matter, could this meeting not have been arranged after Ramazan?"
The chief justice remarked that a full court functions as an "administrative body and does not engage in judicial functions."
Regarding his and Justice Shah's meeting with PM Shehbaz, Justice Isa clarified that he met the premier in his capacity as the "administrative head" of the SC, considering him the "state head" as he garnered the most votes from the National Assembly. He emphasized that the meeting was not an informal gathering but an "official administrative" one.
AGP Awan pointed out inappropriate comments circulating on social media regarding the inquiry commission formed to investigate the allegations.
Mentioning ex-CJP Nasirul Mulk's consideration to lead the commission, the AGP recalled PM Shehbaz's meeting with Jillani, who indicated that he would decide on heading the commission after reviewing the Terms of Reference (ToR).
Read SC takes suo motu after Jillani nixes panel
‘No tolerance for any form of interference’
At a particular juncture, the CJP stated, "If there's any attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary, I'll be at the forefront, and undoubtedly, my fellow judges will stand beside me. We do not tolerate any form of interference.
“If someone has another agenda to do so and so, then they may become the Supreme Court Bar president or the chief justice and enact his will. We will not tolerate pressure of this kind,” he added.
AGP Awan then emphasised that an inquiry commission possessed “great powers”, including the ability to initiate contempt proceedings. He added, "There was a misconception portrayed in the media as if the federal government intended to establish a commission according to its own desires."
In response, CJP Isa remarked, "Who would want to serve in such a hostile environment? If a righteous individual is attacked, he may opt to withdraw and say, 'You deal with this.' Allegations were made that we were ashamed for the nomination."
Highlighting the "baseless criticism" and "personal attacks" against Jillani, the CJP clarified that the former CJP was not leading the commission for financial gain. "Following the social media backlash against Tassaduq Jillani, he chose to recuse himself from heading the commission," Justice Isa noted.
AGP Awan then read aloud Jillani's letter to the prime minister, announcing his recusal, stressing that the commission's proceedings were to be entirely judicial. He recalled that CJP Isa had proposed two names to lead the commission—Mulk and Jillani.
"The impression that the SC has relinquished its powers to the government or the commission is entirely erroneous," CJP Isa asserted. He instructed the AGP to review Article 175 of the Constitution, stating that the apex court's powers were outlined from Article 184 onwards.
"According to the Constitution, the SC lacks the authority to establish an inquiry commission; however, the federal government is empowered to do so," CJP Isa clarified.
AGP Awan urged the chief justice to examine the segment of the IHC judges' letter concerning the SJC.
"We've left the Constitution aside," Justice Isa remarked, questioning, "How can the powers of the SC be delegated to someone else?"
"Every institution must operate within its prescribed boundaries," the chief justice affirmed. "While it's possible that our institution may have exceeded its limits in the past, that is not the case presently," he added.
CJP Isa reiterated that according to the Constitution, the SC cannot establish an inquiry commission, while the federal government retains the authority to do so.
AGP Awan argued that the federal government remained steadfast in safeguarding the independence of the judiciary. He remarked, “From here, verdicts were given, JITs were formed, monitoring judges appointed against the law. What happened between 2017 and 2021 is in front of everyone.”
He also recalled cleric Agha Iftikharuddin Mirza’s “death threat” to Justice Isa in 2020, which prompted the CJP to urge setting it aside.
However, the AGP emphasised, “Discussing this is crucial. History should be brought to light. Mrs. Sarina Isa attempted to lodge a first information report (FIR) but was unsuccessful. The then-federal government referred the matter to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).”
“Sarina Isa provided a statement concerning Mirza Shahzad Akbar and Lt. General (rtd) Faiz Hameed, but no action was taken by the federal government at the time,” he added, highlighting that two CJPs retired during the period, while CJP Isa addressed the matter within 24 hours.
“We have the prime minister’s full support on this matter,” assured the attorney general to the apex court.
IHC letter
During the hearing, the case of former IHC judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui was referenced. Justice Isa remarked that the SC’s verdict on his case was “favourable” to the six IHC judges who authored the letter.
“Pressure on judges also extends to fellow judges, their family members, children, and friends. These days, there’s a new epidemic of social media, and there is pressure from the media as well,” observed CJP Isa.
He noted that although the judges’ letter mentioned family members of the judges being pressured, it did not specify who directly exerted pressure on the judges.
Furthermore, the chief justice pointed out that the IHC judges possessed the constitutional authority to initiate contempt proceedings, which could be utilised. “I cannot use another court’s powers to initiate contempt of court proceedings,” he stated.
Recalling that the IHC judges’ letter surfaced during the tenure of former CJP Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Isa stated that he was “neither consulted nor informed of the matter” by his predecessor.
CJP Isa mentioned that he promptly met with the IHC judges upon being notified by his secretary of their visit. “Although I am not in an executive role, I still made time to meet with the judges,” he added.
“If judges issue a notice of contempt of court, then all parties must appear to provide an explanation,” observed Justice Isa.
He noted that he took note of the statement made by over 300 lawyers but did not observe any of their signatures on it. “In this manner, anyone could claim to represent my or your views,” remarked the chief justice.
“Either trust in democracy completely or not at all; it cannot be selective in obedience. Next time, you can win the election and come,” remarked CJP Isa.
Inquiring of the AGP, Justice Minallah referenced Mirza’s threat against Justice Isa and queried, “Did you ascertain whether it reached a resolution or not?”
Justice Mandokhail, referencing the 2019 reference against CJP Isa, mentioned that “the then-PM (Imran Khan) acknowledged it was a misstep” and questioned what steps should be taken in response.
CJP Isa then commented, “Mistakes have occurred in the past and continue to happen, but we have demonstrated our accountability.”
Reflecting on the emergence of the IHC judges' letter during the tenure of former CJP Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Isa clarified that he had been “neither consulted nor informed of the matter” by his predecessor.
CJP Isa highlighted that upon being notified by his secretary of the IHC judges' visit, he promptly met with them. “Despite not holding an executive role, I still made time to engage with the judges,” he added.
Observing the necessity for all parties to appear and provide explanations if judges issue a notice of contempt of court, Justice Isa asserted.
He pointed out that while he acknowledged the statement made by over 300 lawyers, none of them signed it. “This leaves room for anyone to claim representation of my or your views,” remarked the chief justice.
“Democracy must be trusted entirely or not at all; selective obedience is not acceptable. If you wish to lead, win the election next time,” commented CJP Isa.
Addressing the AGP, Justice Minallah queried about Mirza’s threat against Justice Isa and whether any resolution had been reached.
Referring to the 2019 reference against CJP Isa, Justice Mandokhail raised concerns about the acknowledgement of its misstep by the then-PM (Imran Khan) and questioned the appropriate course of action.
‘Mistakes of the past’
Responding to this, CJP Isa acknowledged, “Mistakes have occurred in the past and continue to happen, but we have demonstrated our accountability.”
Justice Minallah pointed out the prevalent discourse on accountability without tangible actions, suggesting that pursuing cases to their conclusions would warrant discussions.
In response, the CJP clarified, “That case was related to me. I do not wish to create the impression of exerting pressure.”
Acknowledging the occurrence of political manipulation, Justice Minallah hinted at the potential involvement of the court in such matters.
AGP Awan then attributed the presidential reference against Justice Isa to the SC’s 2019 verdict on the Faizabad sit-in, stressing the government's responsibility tfulfilll accountability obligations.