IHC judges’ letter: CJP says won't allow interference in judicial affairs
- By Raja Mohsin Ijaz -
- Apr 30, 2024
The Supreme Court (SC) Tuesday heard a case about allegations raised in six IHC judges’ letter regarding ‘interference’ by the security agencies in judicial matters.
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Qazi Faez Isa on April 1 took suo moto notice of IHC judges’ letter in which they alleged interference by intelligence agencies in judicial matters.
Hearing
At the outset of the hearing, CJP Justice Qazi Faez Isa clarified that the SC’s bench formation committee had “decided that all available judges in Islamabad should immediately convene”.
“There was no pick and choose; whoever was available was put together,” the CJP observed, adding that Justice Afridi had recused himself. Recalling that he had hinted at a full court hearing on the matter, Justice Isa said that it could not be convened as two judges were unavailable.
The top judge noted that there was “so much polarisation in the country” and that “people may not be so interested in the independence of the judiciary but in their own particular viewpoint to prevail”. Reiterating his remarks from the previous hearing, Justice Isa reiterated that “attacks” against ex-CJP Jillani were “upsetting”.
Read more: IHC judges’ letter: Justice Yahya Afridi recuses himself from suo moto bench
“If somebody can impose a will upon this court, that is also interference; interference can be from within, from without, from intelligence agencies, from your colleagues, from your family member, from social media, from everybody else,” CJP Isa said.
“A judge’s judgment and order shows, speaks, shouts how much interference there is or isn’t; how much independence there is or isn’t,” he added.
The top judge remarked, “I am not responsible for the history of the Supreme Court. I am only responsible from the day I became chief justice. I have gone ahead with an inclusive approach.” He recalled that he had summoned a full court meeting which had not been done so in years.
The chief justice then asked AGP Awan if he had gone through the recommendations made by the IHC judges, to which the latter replied in the negative. Justice Isa then asked Awan about how to proceed with the matter.
‘IHC judge’s personal details were leaked on social media’
Here, Justice Minallah remarked: “These are not recommendations or suggestions but a charge sheet.” He remarked IHC judge, who raised the issue is being targeted on social media.The personal details of the IHC judge were shared on social media. “It is the state’s responsibility to protect the judges,’ he remarked.
He remarked that whatever has been happening in Pakistan for 76 years, the same has been taken up by the IHC judges in their letter.
“Interference was always there; this culture has been there for 76 years.”
‘SC has a chance to settle the issue’
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah believed that there is ‘internal and external interference in the judiciary’. He asked if this was the state in which he could not talk on his phone without being ‘monitored’.
Mr. Shah said this is a chance for the SC to resolve the issue and added to build a “firewall” to avert interference.‘What’s next’
Justice Mandokhel remarked what we [SC judges] are facing after beginning to hear the matter. Not one, announce 10 verdicts, but what’s next, he asked.
Justice Mandokhel said the Lahore High Court has also not come up with the complete truth, adding that it has talked about intervention, but did not do it openly.
The CJP remarked he had not received a single complaint regarding interference in judicial matters since assuming the charge of his office.We will not allow interference in the judicial matters, he added.
Judges’ letter
IHC top judges – including Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Baqir Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, and Justice Salman Rafat Imtiaz – penned the letter to SJC in the aftermath of Supreme Court’s March 22 judgment on Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s dismissal case.
In the letter, the top judges sought guidance from the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) with regard to the duty of a “judge to report and respond to actions on part of members of the executive, including operatives of intelligence agencies, that seek to interfere with discharge of his/her official functions and qualify as intimidation”.