Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has ruled that any inaction by a president of the Superior Court in response to a complaint of a judicial officer regarding the interference of executive agencies would be contrary to their constitutional obligations under article 203 of the Constitution.
“The Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court: Firstly, Acted Within His Constitutional Authority Under ARTICLE 203 to Supervise The Proceedings of Subordinate Courts, Including the Anti-Terrorism Courts; And Secondly, in light of the Dismissal of the Reference Againt Administrative Judge Due to Infictionient Grounds, The Chief Justice was Also Fully Justified in Not Taking Further Action on The Transfer Application, Which Lacked Merit and Was Based Solely on A Reference that Lacked convincing evidence.
“We are aware of the fact that the president of the Superior Court of a Superior Court in a province is the paterfamilias of the Judiciary within that province. Therefore, any inaction of its part in response to anyone of such that it is a complaint of a judicial officer would be contrary to its constitutional obligations under article 203 of the Constitution”, a trial of four card holder authorized by the president of the Justice of Pakistan (CJP). Department of Prosecutor’s Office of Punjab against the order of the then Superior Court of the President of the Supreme Court (LHC) on the applications transferred by the State that seeks the transfer of cases of a judge President of the Anti -Terrorist Court (ATC) to another.
The main impulse of the special prosecutor representing the State was that the findings registered in the paras. 8 and 9 of the orders not only were not transmitted by the mandate of authority acquired in the president of the Supreme Court.
It should be noted that former LHC CJ Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan had taken a position against the interference of executive agencies in ATC judges.
He even took a strong exception to the Punjab government request to transfer Judge ATC Rawalpindi. The Punjab government was reluctant to appoint the Atcs judges that were recommended by the former president of the Supreme Court of LHC.
He had sent the complaint of former ATC judge Sargodha to the Apex court, who listened to the cases of Suo Motu in six letters of judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad against the interference of the agencies in their judicial functions.
Meanwhile, the government with the help of former CJP Qazi Faez Isa was able to raise Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan to the Apex court. Four judges of the Supreme Court were not in favor of their elevation to the Apex court, since they believed that the Punjab Judicial Power needed a strong administrative chief.
Unlike former LHC CJ, the former Court of the Superior Court of Islamabad could not take measures on the complaints of the judges regarding the executive interference.
A bank of three judges of the Apex Court led by the CJP Afridi in his written order said it is essential to recognize the special supervision authority acquired in the president of the Superior Court of a Superior Court under article 203 of the Constitution.
“Essentially, article 203 of the Constitution entrusts the president of the Supreme Court, as administrative chief of a superior court, with the responsibility of supervising and regulating the procedures of all subordinated courts within the province, including the Anti -Terrorist Court. Applying this constitutional mandate to the present cases. But also forced to protect the President’s President of the Judicial Power of the District of any undue executive influence,” said the order.
The Court indicated that the reference presented by the State against the President of the President of the ATC, claiming prejudices, was duly considered by the administrative judge.
“After taking into account both the accusations and the response of the president, the administrative judge decided to present the reference, but finally dismissed it, which indicates that there were no insufficient reasons to continue.
“After this, the transfer application was submitted, based solely on the fact that a reference had been made, although there was no convincing evidence to corroborate the accusations. This sequence reinforces the conclusion that the application for transfer lacked sufficient merit to justify more measures,” the order said.
“We have also been informed by the special prosecutor who represents the State that the judges that preside over the anti -terrorist courts, whose bias had been questioned by the State, have been transferred since then.
“As such, there is no live problem for immediate consideration. However, the State continues to be particularly aggrieved by the findings recorded in paras. 8 and 9 of the contested orders, the tax costs and the derivation of the matter for the consideration of this Court in the case No. 1 of suo motorcycle of 2024, as recorded there,” the order said.
“In our opinion, the challenging action of the President of the Supreme Court is essentially of an administrative nature, and that also, in relation to the management and supervision of the subordinates under the constitutional mandate provided for in article 203 of the Constitution, it should not be disturbed, it is not the same as not blatantly unreasonable, capbitous or arbitrary, which are not apparent in the circumstances of those present,” he added. “
The court also observed that the findings registered in the paras. 8 and 9 of the contested orders, with respect to the professional conduct of judicial officers and state officials, seem to be somewhat personal.
“Although, aware of the seriousness of the observations made, we are of the opinion that judicial property requires the circumspection, particularly, commenting on the behavior of executive and judicial officials and even more without proper investigation. Therefore, we consider that it is necessary that it is necessary to clarify that such comments, whether favorable or adverse, should not be seen as a binding effect in the future. That protects them from the legitimate scrutiny, nor State officials, particularly the attorney general, being treated as a sword to harm or undermine their future conduct, these observations should be considered strictly according to the subsequent forum and any future evaluation of their conduct.
