Islamabad:
After the presentation of requests on different issues of five judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC), the ball is now in the Supreme Court, since it will decide its complaints related to judicial independence, as well as the tricotomy of the powers.
This is not the first time that IHC judges approach the Apex court. In March last year, they had written a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) that sought guidance on the interference of the judicial executive agencies.
It is noteworthy that Judge Muhammad Arbab Tahir was also part of the group of judges at that time. However, it is no longer with them, which can have implications for their case.
The former judge of the Superior Court of Lahore, Shahid Jamil Khan, expressed a deep sadness for development, saying that this is the worst era in Pakistan’s judicial history. IHC judges, constitutionally obliged to dispense justice, are seeking justice through a constitutional request.
“Although it is unusual to present a request in person, it supports it as necessary to shake the conscience of the judges sitting in the same building of the Supreme Court, where the judges harmed were ordinary to seek justice. I felt dismayed to witness the abundant corpus of the judicial, kneeling before a hybrid system of which many judges of sitting are an integral part,” said the former judge.
The renowned lawyer Saiful Malook said he had read the constitutional requests presented by the IHC judges. He pointed out that the main accusations in the petition: the complaints about the executive interference in the functioning of the Superior Court, the judges who were pressed not to decide the cases in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and the violations of the judicial oath) had no precedents.
He said that these accusations were not only against the Executive but also against the president of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
“It seems to be a case of first impression, once presented by the judges of a federal constitutional court in any country in the world. A historical burden has been established in the Supreme Court: to remain with constitutional safeguards and protect the fundamental rights of the judges of a court of a court of a court, or declare that their position is not better than the judges of the requests.
“If they cannot defend the Constitution, they should say it openly, so that the people of Pakistan clearly know that the judicial body of the State is a fraud, and that the judges of the highest court are only worried about a monthly salary of RS3 million more advantages that are worth more than RS5 million each, and that no one should seek them in justice under the Constitution and the law,” said Malok.
The lawyer Chaudhry Faisal Hussain said that, as a lawyer, it was a very depressing and sad day.
“In fact, it is painful and stressful to see my own institution to crumble in such a way that the judges are in the Apex court to seek justice. This is not a specific problem of the person; it is the institution of the Judiciary that is under attack,” he added.
In addition, he declared that the order that restricts Judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri was illegal and unconstitutional, since under the Constitution only the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) has the authority to assume complaints against judges of the Superior Court.
When six IHC judges wrote to the SJC previously, they were summoned by the former president of the Pakistan Supreme Court Qazi Faez Isa in the CJP House. The reports suggested that Judge Isa was visibly upset by his letter.
However, he was forced to convene a complete judicial meeting to discuss it. The next day, the former CJP, accompanied by Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, met with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and suggested the constitution of an investigation commission to investigate the accusations.
When the former CJP Tassaduq Hussain Jillani withdrew from leading the investigation commission, CJP Isa had no choice but to initiate SUO MOTU procedures in the letter of the judges of IHC.
During the hearing, the different higher courts also admitted that the agency’s interference in judicial functions was a “short -term secret.” The matter remains pending.
Meanwhile, the Government managed to approve the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The purpose of this amendment, critics say, was to ensure executive domain over the Judiciary. Since its passage, the Government has largely harden its control.
When five judges questioned the transfer of three judges to the IHC, the Apex court supported the executive’s plan. Now, once again, IHC judges have approached the Supreme Court.
The main lawyers believe that the Executive wants the SJC to be activated against Judge Jahangiri.
The role of six SC judges will be crucial in matters related to IHC judges. Similarly, the role of three members of SJC, CJP Yahya Afridi, Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Judge Munib Akhtar, will also be decisive. Similarly, a three -members committee comprised of Judge Aminuddin Khan, Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail and Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar will decide the fixation of their requests.
There is the perception that neither the five judges of IHC nor the president of the Supreme Court of IHC, Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, are in the good books of a certain section of the Judiciary that currently has influence in the SC.
The detailed trial in the case of transfer of IHC judges will be important. Even minority opinion can support the position of the five IHC judges.
