IHC judges' letter: SC resumes suo motu hearing on judicial meddling

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday resumed hearing a case pertaining to allegations made by six Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges regarding alleged interference by the country’s security apparatus in judicial matters.

A six-member larger bench headed by CJP Qazi Faez Isa, comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhaill, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan heard the case.

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.

The hearing

At the outset of the hearing, AGP Awan requested the court for more time to present his arguments as he had not received a copy of the April 30 hearing.

AGP Awan apprised the court that written order of the last hearing is not yet received.

The AGP said that the order must be shown to the prime minister to file government’s reply.

CJP Isa then inquired the counsels of the bar councils and associations how long they would take to present their arguments.

Upon Justice Isa’s directive, the AGP then read aloud the short order from the last hearing.

Justice Minallah asked the counsel if it would not have been better to summon a meeting and agree on a unanimous response. “Whatever their opinion was, it is equally important,” he added.

Justice Minallah said everyone was agreeing that there is interference in judicial matters.

At this, Justice Mandokhail said that there is interference but the government is not doing anything about it.

During previous 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.

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”.