The Supreme Court resumed on Tuesday heard the suo motu pertaining to allegations made by six Islamabad High Court judges alleging interference by the country’s intelligence agencies in judicial affairs and urged unity for the judiciary’s independence.
A six-member bench, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and including justices Athar Minallah, Mansoor Ali Shah, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Musarrat Hilali and Naeem Akhtar Afghan, conducted the hearing which was also broadcast on the apex court’s Youtube channel.
At the start of the hearing, AGP Awan requested more time to present arguments due to not receiving a copy of the April 30 hearing. He also mentioned the need to consult Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. CJP Isa then asked the counsels of bar associations about their time frame for arguments. He emphasized hearing from organizational representatives before individuals.
The AGP then read a note by Justice Minallah highlighting the seriousness of the matter regarding judicial independence. Justice Minallah suggested the government clarify its position, and the CJP urged unity among bar councils for the judiciary’s independence. The PBC lawyer suggested a judicial commission to investigate allegations and urged judges to use existing laws. Justice Minallah stressed the need for a strong deterrent and cited existing laws.
SCBA President Shahzad Shaukat expressed concern over remarks eroding public trust in the judiciary. He called for an inquiry into the leaked IHC judges’ letter and advocated for protecting judicial independence.
Shaukat urged a protective framework and specific guidelines for judges’ social activities. Justice Minallah emphasized judges rising above criticism.
The discussion then turned to past events like the 2007 judicial crisis, with Justice Minallah and Justice Mandokhail highlighting the importance of truth and fair criticism. CJP Isa emphasized the difference between criticism and lies, advocating for truthfulness. IHC Bar Association lawyer Ahmed Hasan argued against interference in the judiciary, including misuse of suo motu powers.
CJP Isa reiterated the judiciary’s duty to uphold independence, praising judges who faced challenges in the past. During the last hearing, the apex court observed that the federal government or intelligence agencies could submit a reply to the court if they wanted, but declared that pushing the judiciary to their own path was also “interference”.
During the proceedings, not only the judges made interesting observations about the previous history of the intelligence agencies’ “interference” in the judicial affairs, but conflicting opinions came out as well. Justice Athar Minallah noted that this had been happening between the judiciary and the security apparatus for 76 years. He added that it was the responsibility of the state to protect the judges and the independence of the judiciary. However, Chief Justice Isa disagreed with this “theory”, maintaining that such a culture did not exist in the country. “If I cannot deliver correct judgments in accordance with the Constitution and the law despite interference or pressure, then I should go home.”
The chief justice further observed that he had served as the Balochistan High Court chief justice for more than five years and during that time, the biggest threat came from the Supreme Court. The top judge continued that he should not be taken into the context of 76 years of judicial history.
Justice Minallah observed that he had also served as the IHC chief justice for four years and there was no “interference” during his tenure. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah also remarked that nobody had interfered in his judicial affairs so far. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail pointed out that this meant that it was limited to a specific judge. Justice Musarrat Hilali noted that those who could not put up with pressure had no right to be judges.
Justice Shah observed that today the Supreme Court judges had a golden opportunity to set the rules. However, he regretted that the high courts did not exercise their power of contempt. Justice Hilali concurred, noting that why could the IHC judges not act themselves on what they wrote in the letter and asking the top court to take action.
Justice Minallah highlighted that if a judge showed courage, a reference came out against them. “If we ourselves don’t open our doors to the people, nothing will happen.” The judge noted that an online campaign was run against a judge with his personal data, apparently referring to IHC’s Justice Babar Sattar.
On the issue of a full court, Chief Justice Isa explained that the three-member committee had decided to form a bench that consisted of all available judges. He added that Justice Yahya Afridi had left the bench and two other judges were not available for the full court.
The chief justice remarked that he would never accept any interference from any source and there had not been a single complaint to him or the SC registrar since his taking over of his current office. He inquired if it amounted to interference when the presidents of the lower judiciary’s bar associations forced their way into the judges’ chambers.
