ISLAMABAD  -   Six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has written a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against the alleged interference and intimidation by the operatives of intelligence agencies.

The IHC judges including Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz Tuesday wrote the letter to SJC seeking guidance on the interference of intelligent agencies in judicial functions.

The judges stated in the letter that they are writing to seek 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, as well as the duty to report any such actions that come to his/her attention in relation to colleagues and/or members of the courts that the High Court supervises.” 

They concluded, “We, there­fore, request that a judicial con­vention be called to consider the matter of interference of in­telligence operatives with judi­cial functions and /or intimida­tion of judges in a manner that undermines independence of the judiciary. Such convention might provide further informa­tion as to whether judges of oth­er High Courts have had experi­ences similar to those narrated above. Such institutional con­sultation might then assist the Supreme Court to consider how best to protect independence of the judiciary, put in place a mechanism to affix liability for those who undermine such in­dependence and clarify for the benefit of individual judges the course of action they must take when they find themselves at the receiving end of interfer­ence and/or intimidation by members of the executive.”

The letter said that they be­lieve it is imperative to inquire into and determine wheth­er there exists a continuing policy on part of the execu­tive branch of the state, im­plemented by intelligence op­eratives who report to the executive branch, to intimidate judges, under threat of coer­cion or blackmail, to engineer judicial outcomes in politically consequential matters, in view of the following events.

It mentioned that there emerged a difference of opin­ion between members of the bench hearing the case titled Muhammad Said Vs. Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi (Writ Pe­tition No.3061 of 2022). The matter was reserved to deter­mine the question of main­tainability on 30.03.2023. The presiding judge circulated his draft opinion finding the pe­tition maintainable, while the other two disagreed with it and wrote, a different opin­ion, which was circulated on 19.04.2023. 

“Considerable pressure was brought to bear on the judg­es who had opined that the pe­tition was not maintainable, by operatives of the ISI, through friends and relatives of these judges. Fearing for their secu­rity, they sought additional pro­tection for their homes. One of the judges had to be admitted in a hospital due to high blood pressure caused by stress. The matter was brought to the at­tention of Chief Justice IHC. It was also brought to the atten­tion of the then Chief Justice of Pakistan during a meeting at his residence on 02.05.2023. On 03.05.2023 six judges of IHC met with Chief Justice IHC to share their concerns re efforts of ISI operatives to affect judi­cial outcomes. He advised that he had already spoken to the DG ISI and had been assured that no official from ISI will approach judges of the IHC. The interfer­ence on part intelligence oper­atives however continued,” said the letter.

It also pointed out that in May 2023, the brother-in-law of a judge of IHC was abduct­ed by armed men. He was re­turned at night approximately 24 hours after his abduction. He subsequently revealed that he was abducted by individu­als who claimed to be opera­tives of the ISI, and after hav­ing undertaken surveillance of members of the judge’s family, including his son, had selected the brother-in-law for abduc­tion. During his confinement he was administered electric shocks. He was also forced to record a video on the instruc­tion of his abductors and tor­tured into making false al­legations. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against the judge of IHC before the SIC, ac­companied by an orchestrated media campaign to bring pres­sure to bear upon the judge to resign.

The IHC judges also men­tioned that on 10.05.2023, the judges of the IHC sent a letter to Chief Justice IHC recording inci­dences of operatives of the ISI seeking to interfere with judi­cial matters and requested that appropriate contempt proceed­ings be initiated to ensure that Islamabad High Court continues to discharge its functions with­out interference by the execu­tive and/or intelligence agen­cies but no proceedings were however initiated. 

The judges said that afore­mentioned events suggest that if in our judicial history there were ever a design to under­mine the independence of the judiciary and influence the out­come of cases of interest to the executive branch, such design may not have been discarded. In the matter of Shaukat Aziz Sid­diqui allegations of interference by operatives of ISI have been dealt with and relief has been granted to a former judge of IHC who was wronged. We believe that while such action was nec­essary, it may not be sufficient.