Islamabad: Supreme Court heard suo motu case concerning alleged interference in judiciary, following letter from six judges of Islamabad High Court regarding issue.

Six-member larger bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa conducted hearing. Other members of bench were Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Mandokhel, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

In addition to primary case, bench also heard 11 separate pleas seeking to become parties in proceedings. Notable petitioners include Shehbaz Khosa, representatives of Pakistan Bar, as well as Islamabad and Sindh High Court Bars, Balochistan lawyer organisations and Mian Dawood. 

These petitions collectively urge Supreme Court to investigate purported interference in judicial process.  CJP started off by saying committee had decided that all available judges would hear case, adding that Justice Yahya Afridi had pardoned from sitting on bench. He said he thought full court would hear case, but two judges were not available.

“People probably do not want independence of judiciary. We will ensure independence of this court,” CJP Isa stressed, insisting that there should be no attack on court from within or outside.  Chief Justice said he was not responsible for history of court, asking for suggestions, if there were any.

He then asked Attorney General if he had read IHC’s suggestions. AGP Mansoor Usman Awan replied in negative.  “It is not just suggestions, but charge sheet,” Justice Minallah remarked. Supreme Court then ordered to make suggestions of Islamabad High Court public. “Everything is being broadcast on media, so we should also make it public,” CJP Isa declared, and then ordered Attorney General to read out IHC’s recommendations in court. AGP complied.

CJP asked if high court could not itself take steps according to Constitution on points mentioned in suggestions. AGP replied that it could take action itself on all points.

CJP noted that Supreme Court could not interfere in high court’s matters, as in past, results of such interventions have not been good.

Justice Minallah said suggestions sent by high court should be appreciated, adding that if there was no response, judges will not be fearless. “We should look at points raised by IHC judges,” he said further, adding that judges have said alleged interference is an ongoing issue.  LHC has observed that executive intervention in judiciary is an open secret. Justice Mandokhel said Lahore High Court is also talking about intervention.

CJP said Chief Justice should not ask judge to deal with case in specific manner, adding that independence of judiciary is also affected by appointing monitoring judge and creating JIT against law. “Ever since I became Chief Justice, not single case of interference has come before me,” he asserted, adding that he would not allow any interference in judiciary.

CJP Isa questioned if it was not intervention when bar presidents sat in judges’ chambers in subordinate judiciary. Justice Minallah said he agreed with Chief Justice that there should not be such interference from within. “We have to solve internal matter ourselves,” he remarked. “When state becomes aggressive against judge, it becomes different matter.”

“I know many judges who are cautioned that their child’s whereabouts are known,” Justice Minallah said, adding that in 2018, campaign was launched against him also. “It is responsibility of state when NADRA data of one’s wife and children becomes public.”

Justice Mandokhel said Lahore High Court has also not come up with complete truth, adding that it has talked about intervention, but did not do it openly. CJP Isa commented that district Judiciary had also sent some suggestions, which were read out by AGP.

District judiciary’s proposals included action by identifying organisations and individuals involved in phone tapping or video recording of judges or families; contempt of court proceedings by judges if state agencies interfered or blackmailed; where there is interference, Chief Justice, district and sessions judge or any judge could summon CCTV recordings; if sessions judges do not conduct proceedings themselves, they should report to high court that will form five-judge bench and decide matter.

Justice Shah observed that everyone has become courageous because of this case, and it will bring surprising results. Justice Minallah said he found Balochistan High Court’s reply interesting, adding that it said everything through poetry of Martin Luther King and Akbar Allahabadi.

“Interference was always there; this culture has been there for 76 years,” he further remarked.  Justice Afghan remarked that there were agencies operating in country: IB, ISI and MI. He then asked under which law they were formed, and also said court should be informed in next hearing law under which these agencies worked. Justice Shah then said high courts were looking at SC to do something. At this, CJP said that there should be no interference in high courts.

Justice Shah said intelligence agencies should also respond in this case, Justice Minallah said agencies should be asked to submit an affidavit that there was no interference, Chief Justice said they should not get into endless debates, adding that agencies were under federal government, which could file response.

“If someone asks me for an affidavit, I will also say that there was interference in Supreme Court.” he maintained. After hearing, court order said that petitioners could submit proposals, AGP should submit response on behalf of federal government and if there is any allegation related to an intelligence agency, they should submit response through AGP.

Published in The Daily National Courier, May, 01 2024

Like Business on Facebook, follow @DailyNCourier on Twitter to stay informed and join in the conversation.