ISLAMABAD:
Judges of high courts have been conditionally allowed to attend social, political and diplomatic functions with the permission of the concerned Chief Justice. The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), at its meeting on June 11, approved amendments to the Code of Conduct of Judges.
Last October, the SJC, by majority, approved a new Code of Conduct under which high court judges were completely prohibited from presiding over or attending any social, cultural, political or diplomatic functions.
However, two members of the SJC, namely Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, had raised strong objections to the passage of the amended code, warning that the changes undermined judicial independence and centralized authority and could be misused to silence dissenting judges.
Shortly after the adoption of the amended Code of Conduct of Judges, the 26th Constitutional Amendment was submitted to parliament for approval in November, and Supreme Court judges were unable to secure its constitutional jurisdiction.
Now, the SJC has approved new amendments according to which high court judges can attend political and diplomatic functions with the permission of the relevant chief justice. It is not clear whether the “relevant Chief Justice” will also need permission to attend such functions.
Likewise, the influence of the executive in the appointment of chief justices cannot be ruled out. Some outspoken judges have also complained against their chief justices regarding case assignments as well as other administrative issues.
Chief Justices have the authority to sanction or cancel the leave of judges. Legal experts believe that the discretionary powers of chief justices should be regulated.
Commenting on the amendment to the Code of Conduct, Abdul Moiz Jaferii stated that Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah are no longer members of the SJC and therefore the rules regarding public speaking have been relaxed.
Likewise, the SJC has approved the inclusion of “Federal Constitutional Court” in the title of the code. The new title is: “Code of Conduct of Judges of the Federal Constitutional Court (FFC), the Supreme Court (SC) and the Higher Courts.”
The SJC has also modified paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article XV.
According to the amended article, in case of any external influence, the judges shall immediately inform, in writing, the chief justice of the concerned high court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) and the Chief Justice of the FCC or the SC, if not the CJP, as well as the two senior judges of the FCC and the SC through the respective registrars.
In the case of the FCC or the SC, the judge must immediately inform in writing the president of the Supreme Court and the four highest-ranking judges of the corresponding court through the respective registrars.
The chief justice will refer the matter to a three-judge committee within two days of receiving the report. The committee will decide the issue within fifteen days.
If the matter is referred for judicial decision, it must be decided as soon as possible, respecting the principles of fair trial and due process.
If the chief justice or the committee, in the case of a higher court, does not respond within the stipulated time, the matter will be taken up by the FCC or SC forum that was informed by the judge.
Last year, the SJC amended Article V of the code, which states that a judge shall not engage in any public controversy (whether through speech, writing, debate or comment) in any forum, particularly on political issues, even if such issues involve a question of law.
“You will not interact with the media, especially on issues that may provoke public debate or negatively affect collegiality and institutional discipline,” he said.
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqi said the new Article V was nothing more than gagging judges by restricting their freedom of expression. “How can these judges protect citizens’ freedom of expression?” asked.
Siddiqi further stated that the 26th Amendment, the licensing policy, and the new Article V serve a similar purpose: “to control and silence independent judges.”
Another lawyer stated that the SJC and the Code of Conduct have proven ineffective when it comes to the majority of judges violating their oath by serving the interests of the executive.
“Corruption, nepotism and violations of judicial oaths are tolerated, accepted and even normalized by those willing to serve their masters,” he said.
