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 President of the Superior Court of Lahore: first, he acted within his constitutional authority under article 203 to supervise the procedures of the subordinate courts, including the anti -terrorist courts; and secondly, in the light of the dismissal of the reference against the administrative judge by the administrative judge due to the insufficient foundations, the main justice was also completely justified in the measurement of the transference, which lacked A reference, which lacked a reference, and was based on a reference that lacked a reference, and was based on the reference and was based on the lack of reference, which was not based on the reference, which lacked a reference, which lacked a reference, and was based on a reference that lacked a reference, and was based on the reference, which lacked a reference, which lacked a reference, and was based on a reference In the lack of reference. 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.
