ISLAMABAD - Supreme Court of Pakistan Tuesday directed the federation to file reply on the allegations levelled by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges regarding interference and intimidation by the “operative of the intelligence agencies” in judicial functions.
A six-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Naeem Akhtar Afghan conducted hearing of the suo motu notice taken on the allegations of the Islamabad High Court judges’ letter.
The apex court said that if the federation wants to make any proposal, recommendation, or suggestion to stop the agencies interference in judicial work then it may do so. Pakistan Bar Council, Supreme Court Bar Association, and the provincial bar councils and association were also asked to file suggestions or proposals. If any intelligence agency feels aggrieved of the allegations in the letter of the IHC judges’ then it can file reply.
In late March, six IHC judges — out of a total strength of eight — wrote a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) members, regarding attempts to pressure judges through the abduction and torture of their relatives as well as secret surveillance inside their homes.
The letter was signed by judges Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Saman Rafat Imtiaz.
A day later various quarters demanded probe into the investigation, amid which CJP Isa summoned a full court meeting of the SC judges. In a meeting, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and CJP Faez had decided to form an inquiry commission, which was later approved by the federal cabinet.
During the hearing, Justice Athar said, “We need to show how to secure the independence of judiciary, and how to ensure that the executive and intelligence agencies don’t interfere in judicial functions and intimidate the judges.” “Can we contain and restrict the culture of deviance.” He said that the proposals of the high courts are not just proposals, but charge-sheet against the State organs.
At the outset of the hearing, CJP Isa clarified that prior to the last hearing, 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,” he observed, noting that Justice Afridi had recused himself. Recalling that he had hinted at a full court, Justice Isa said that it could not be convened as two judges were unavailable. The top judge noted that there is so much polarisation in the country and 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”.
Justice Isa said, “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 members, from social media, from everybody else.”
Justice Athar said that Faizabad dhana judgment was landmark verdict, but what the government did, it constituted a commission, that failed to probe things mentioned in the judgment. He said the agencies are under the control of the Prime Minister and the cabinet. If they (agencies) indulge in illegal acts, then the PM and cabinet are responsible. He said that the armed forces can’t perceive wrong against the people as they are defender of the nation.
Justice Mansoor said that if the dharna judgment was not implemented then at least the bench should make suggestions to end the element of internal complicity. The Chief Justice remarked which case is fixed, and to before which bench is also complicity. Justice Faez told that to separate him from the bench, which was hearing a case against the PTI government, a judicial order was passed by a larger member of the Supreme Court. He said the world knows that it was General Faiz behind Faizabad dharna but “I dissociated from the case because I don’t want to give the impression of personal (vendetta) therefore left it to the government to form commission.”
Justice Afghan questioned what is the job description of intelligence agencies – ISI and MI – and what was their original mandate, and if any officer in the name of the national interest interfere in the judicial functions or threaten any judge then could the whole department be held responsible? Justice Jamal said if such things happen then it should also be made clear whether it was an officer or institution plan.
Justice Hilali said if the judges can’t propel the pressure then they should not sit in the court. Justice Athar said the issue that six judges highlighted in the letter was against the state and the state organs. Justice Jamal then remarked that only fault of six judges was that they wrote a letter to the SJC and after that malicious campaign started against them, adding; “If we (SC) take a stand then what would happen to us.” He said after taking suo motu the campaign launched against the chief justice.
Justice Faez said had the Supreme Court judgment on Faizabad dharna implemented then such interference might have stopped. He also said interference on judiciary is not always external, but it is from institution too. He stated after the judgment, the federation, MQM, PTI, Awami Muslim League, and Ijazul Haq had filed the review petitions, because they did not its implementation. There was complicity of the institution (SC) too, as for four years the review petitions were not fixed.
Justice Faez said that pressure is everywhere even in bureaucracy, and if a government servant does not comply illegal orders then he is made SDO. He said the judges of superior courts have power, which they need to demonstrate in instances of interference.
Justice Athar said if the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Courts, then why not it can make system to protect them. Upon that the chief justice stated that the apex court can strike down the law passed by the Parliament, but it does not mean it start making laws. “It is our primary duty to act in accordance with law,” he added.
The Chief Justice said independence of judiciary is not achieved overnight, it is long journey. No country not even America or United Kingdom can claim that they have complete democracy. Later, the bench deferred hearing of the case till May 7 for further proceedings.