ISLAMABAD - Reserving its judgment on Contempt of Court against Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader and Minister for Privatisation Daniyal Aziz on his alleged anti-judiciary tirades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that democracy is fascism without an independent judiciary.  

Aziz was issued notice on February 19 after he allegedly delivered anti-judiciary speeches at different forums, including Punjab House, accusing the judges of different standards while announcing judgments.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and comprising Justice Mushir Alam and Justice Mazhar Alam Miankhel reserved the judgment after conclusion of arguments of Prosecutor Rana Waqar and Aziz’s counsel Ali Raza.

Justice Saeed observed that freedom of expression has also limits, adding the contempt of court is not even allowed on the floor of the Parliament.

He further observed that there are a number of countries where democracy prevails but judiciary is not independent, adding such countries are called fascist states. 

During the course of hearing, Prosecutor Rana Waqar argued that remarks against judiciary tantamount to attack the country’s justice system.

He said that stigmatising judiciary or its judges fall under the contempt of court which is intolerable, adding the Constitution ensures the protection of judiciary. 

He said that the accused person committed contempt of court through three statements. He further contended that Aziz had termed dismissal of a case seeking disqualification of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Chairman Imran Khan and disqualification of Jahangir Tareen ‘scripted.’  The accused also said that the monitoring judge of the Supreme Court orchestrated the corruption references against Nawaz Sharif and his family, contended the prosecutor.

Prosecutor Waqar further argued that Aziz in his speech had said that it would be written in the history as to ‘who’ conveyed the issue of Capital FZE to Justice Ijazul Ahsan, the member of larger bench of the Panama Papers Case and monitoring judge to supervise the references in accountability court. 

The prosecutor further told the court that Aziz eroded the court’s authority and did not disown his comments, adding judiciary is custodian of fundamental rights and its importance can never be ruled out.

He added that Aziz criticised judiciary with mala fide intentions in order to make judiciary controversial.

Ali Raza, counsel for Aziz, told the bench that pronouncement of a court can be criticised and his client criticised the judgment with no mala fide intentions.

Justice Saeed in his remarks said that Aziz was not indicted for criticising court verdicts but the court itself.

Meanwhile, another three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar has transferred the CoC case of former senator Faisal Raza Abidi to a different bench.

The decision of transferring the case to another bench was made after counsel for Abidi objected to the composition of the bench through an application and requested to constitute a bench comprising non-PCO judges.

Abidi in his application, which he submitted during the hearing, stated that Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar took oath under the Provisional Constitutional Order of 1999 when he was elevated as judge of Lahore High Court (LHC). “The applicant (Faisal Raza Abidi) has a principled stance against the provisional constitutional order and believes in and every word of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973,” the application stated.

“The doctrine of independence of accountability of judges as expounded by Islamic jurisprudence, Constitution of Pakistan 1973, doctrine of due process of law and rule of law envisages that a new bench comprising non-PCO judges may kindly be constituted to protect the fundamental rights of applicant for the adjudication of allegation levelled against the applicant,” the application further stated.

When the bench resumed the hearing, the bench expressed displeasure on the body language of Abidi. The Chief Justice told Abidi that there are manners and etiquettes of standing in the court room.

Those present in the court room during the hearing witnessed an exchange of counter-statements between the bench and Abidi’s counsel.

Justice Ijazul Ahsan, member of the bench, snubbed Abidi’s counsel and said that his way of argument is inappropriate. Justice Ahsan questioned if the counsel has a licence to practice in the Supreme Court.

Video clip of Abidi’s interview on private TV channel was also played in the court room following which the counsel informed the bench that another application besides constitution of another bench has also been filed to hear the case at the Supreme Court’s Karachi registry.

The bench, however, rejected the second application of transferring the case at the Karachi registry and adjourned the matter for date-in-office.