ISLAMABAD: Justice Athar Minallah, the only judge who dissented in the Supreme Court May 30 ruling on live-streaming of NAB law amendments case, asserted that showing PTI founder Imran Khan live was not a ‘violation of any law’, ARY News reported on Wednesday.
In the May 30 hearing, a five-member bench decided in a 4:1 ruling not to stream the proceedings live, with Justice Minallah dissenting from it. The decision was taken on an application by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general (AG) to live-stream the proceedings.
The top court issued a detailed order on the plea and explained its decision to not live-stream the proceedings of NAB amendments case, stating that these hearings may be used for “political purposes and point scoring”.
The top court judge, in his 13-page long dissenting note released, noted the Supreme Court had declared access of the public to the court proceedings in all cases in matters of public importance through live streaming as a recognised fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19-A of the Constitution.
He referred to the principles enunciated in the case of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, which recognised the right of the public to have access to information in matters of public importance under Article 19-A of the Constitution.
The top court judge emphasised that live streaming of court proceedings ensures transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and institutions.
Justice Minallah also stated that cases heard under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, including the present appeal, are matters of public importance and therefore the public has a right to access the court proceedings through live streaming.
He stated that the discretion to order live streaming or otherwise should be guided by this right and should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons.
Once the proceedings have been live streamed, they cannot be discontinued unless there is a demonstrably substantial reason in the public interest, the judge stated.
Justice Athar Minallah further said that the approach of the Court should be “in favour of the millions of followers and their representatives”.
Referring to the “grave wrong done” in denying an elected Prime Minister, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the right to a fair trial, he maintained that the “damage [done by the court] was irretrievable.”
“The perception of the existence of a coercive apparatus of the State cannot be ignored by a constitutional court, particularly having regard to the unjustified treatment of representatives of the people in the past. The perception of complicity of this Court in or by allowing the elected representatives to be humiliated, harassed, and persecuted for other than bona fide reasons is not unfounded,” says Justice Minallah in his minority opinion.
The judge said that PTI founder Imran Khan, like other former elected prime ministers, has millions of followers across the country, as has become “evident from the results of the last general elections.”
“He is definitely not an ordinary prisoner or convict.”
“The denial of guaranteed right will unjustifiably give rise to suspicions and violate the principles laid down in the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa case,” he noted.
The court stated that it is obligated to ensure transparency and enforcement of the guaranteed right under Article 19-A of the Constitution by giving access to the public to the court proceedings through live streaming.
Review petitions
The federal government filed the review plea in the NAB amendments case under the SC Practice and Procedure Law and made the Federation of Pakistan, National Accountability Bureau and PTI founder respondents.
Read More: SC rejects plea seeking live streaming of NAB law case
Citing no violation of basic rights with the NAB amendments, the federal government pleaded with the SC to nullify its decision in the case. “Legislation is the right of the Parliament,” the plea said.
Verdict
In a majority 2-1 verdict, the top court approved Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan’s petition challenging amendments made to the country’s accountability laws during the tenure of the previous Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM)-led government.
The top court also restored graft cases against public office holders that were closed down following the amendments to National Accountability Bureau laws.
