Where will conflict among judges lead SC?

Since July 12 ruling, CJ Isa has adopted an aggressive policy towards majority judges

ISLAMABAD:

Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJ) Qazi Faez Isa has adopted an aggressive policy toward the eight Supreme Court judges who allowed the PTI to claim reserved seats in the National Assembly and provincial legislatures through a short majority order on July 12.

Seven days after announcement of the short order, CJ Isa as head of a three-member SC committee that lists cases and forms benches emphasized that the PML-N government's review petition against the order be held earlier.

However, the other two members of the committee—Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar—did not agree with him on two grounds.

Later, CJ Isa issued a dissenting note in which he expressed concern over the majority opinion.

After a few days, Justice Isa reconstituted the alternate dispute resolution (ADR) committee by replacing Justice Shah with Justice Yahya Afridi and other two SC judges.

The friction among senior SC judges was also witnessed when Justice Shah and Justice Akhtar modified the minutes of a meeting of the three-member SC committee convened to schedule the murder case of the late journalist Arshed Sharif for hearing.

Sources told The Express Tribune that the minutes of the August 1 meeting were uploaded on the SC website without the approval and signatures of Justice Shah and Justice Akhtar.

However, a senior official had said that generally the minutes are recorded by the SC secretary/ registrar and approved by the chairman/chief justice of Pakistan.

Earlier, CJ Qazi Faez Isa had expressed serious concerns over Justice Athar Minallah's delay in writing a judgement about the vires of the Excise Act, 2005.

The relationship between the two judges has been strained since six Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges wrote a letter in March this year regarding the interference of agencies in judicial functions.

Both judges indirectly responded to each other's observations during hearing of suo motu proceedings initiated in view of the IHC judges' letter. The matter is still pending in the apex court, with a clear difference of opinion between the judges.

When CJ Isa gave some verbal observations in the contempt case involving Senator Faisal Vawda and MNA Mustafa Kamal, Justice Minallah immediately wrote a letter to the SC Registrar to dispel the impression that the contempt proceedings were initiated on his complaint.

Justice Minallah stated unequivocally in his letter that neither any complaint was filed by him nor was he consulted in any manner in this regard. Both judges also indirectly responded to each other's observations during the hearing of the reserved seats case.

The difference of opinion between them was also evident during the hearing of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa government's plea to allow live streaming of the NAB law amendments case. Justice Minallah dissented from the majority opinion, stating that live streaming of the case must be permitted.

It was also witnessed that two senior SC judges namely Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar did not attend the full court ceremony at the opening of the new judicial year.

Justice Munib Akhtar on September 13 also walked out from the Judicial Commission of Pakistan's (JCP) meeting which sought an explanation about the status of a proposed constitutional amendment package.

When eight SC judges issued clarification on the ECP application in reserved seats case, a deputy registrar issued a note which was also published by the media.

After the promulgation of an ordinance that amended the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, 2023, CJ Isa on Friday reconstituted the three-member SC committee by replacing Justice Munib Akhtar with Justice Aminuddin Khan.

Now CJ Isa has sought explanation from the SC registrar about the issuance/ uploading of the eight judges' clarification on the SC website.

It will be interesting to see how much restraint the eight judges will now show given the fact that they are also facing a tough time at the hand of the executive authorities.

It has been witnessed that superior bars are silent in the prevailing situation. A majority of bar representatives are under full control of the government.

Different lawyers have different views on prevailing situations. A leading lawyer said a full court meeting should be summoned to devise a strategy to counter an assault on the institution.

However, another lawyer was of the view that majority judges should conduct themselves with grace and should not respond to CJ Isa in kind.

He said it is a big test of the bars and the people. "If they don't want an independent judiciary then there will be no independence," he added.

On the other hand, lawyers who are supporting CJ Isa wonder why the eight judges are delaying the detailed judgement in the reserved seats case. They claimed that the judges are delaying the detailed judgement to halt a judicial package which includes formation of the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC).

Some lawyers said creation of the FCC is an attempt to end the independence of the judiciary. The present regime cannot afford independent judges, they added.

They said efforts are also underway to encourage the ECP to allocate reserved seats to ruling political parties in violation of the July 12 order.