Justice Mansoor Ali Shah on Tuesday stressed on empowering the judiciary to counter “all sorts of excesses,” adding a system should be implemented rather than dealing with any incidents individually.
Addressing Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan as part of a six-member bench of the Supreme Court hearing a suo motu case pertaining to six Islamabad High Court (IHC) alleging interference by intelligence agencies in judicial matters, he observed that “interfering” in the present instance served to empower the entire judiciary.
Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, the bench includes justices Shah, Athar Minallah, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Musarrat Hilali and Naeem Akhtar Afghan. This was the second hearing in the case, with the first taking place earlier this month after the six IHC judges wrote to the Supreme Judicial Council seeking remedies for alleged interference of spy agencies in judicial affairs.
Initially, following a meeting into the matter between the CJP and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, the government had formed an inquiry commission led by ex-CJP Tassaduq Hussain Jillani to probe the matter. However, after his recusal, the top court took suo motu notice and formed a seven-member bench to hear the case. Justice Yahya Afridi, however, recused himself from the case.
During today’s hearing, the CJP said the SC’s bench formation committee had “decided that all available judges in Islamabad should immediately convene,” noting that a full court could not be convened for the case as two judges were unavailable. He regretted that the polarization in the country meant people were more interested in their personal viewpoints prevailing rather than judicial independence.
“If somebody can impose a will upon this court, that is also interference. Interference can be from within, from without, from intelligence agencies, from your colleagues, from your family members, from social media, from everybody else,” he remarked. “A judge’s judgment and order shows, speaks, shouts how much interference there is or isn’t; how much independence there is or isn’t,” he said, adding he was “not responsible” for any interference in the Supreme Court in the past. “I am only responsible from the day I became chief justice,” he said, adding no one had complained of interference to him since he became CJP.
The CJP then directed the AGP to read out the high courts’ proposals on how to combat interference. Justice Minallah described the reports as “a charge sheet,” while the CJP said the apex court should not interfere in the work of high courts. “The results of interference in high courts’ matters have not been good in the past,” he said.
Justice Minallah then pointed out that there appeared to be unanimity on meddling from the high courts. The SC then ordered that the proposals made by the IHC judges to be made public. “When everything is airing on the media, we may make this public as well,” said the CJP and questioned if high courts could implement them under existing laws. The AGP responded in the affirmative. The CJP then said the SC should limit itself to the high courts’ suggestions.
“I will never accept any interference from any source and there has not been a single complaint since my assumption of this office to me or the SC’s registrar,” he remarked, asking if it was also interference when the presidents of bar associations “force their way into the judges’ chambers.”
“If the state becomes the aggressor against a judge, that is what all the high courts are highlighting and that is a serious matter,” remarked Justice Minallah, noting the LHC had endorsed the views of the IHC judges. “We all know that it is happening and has happened,” he remarked, adding judges “fear” reporting such incidents due to backlash. In an apparent reference to IHC Justice Babar Sattar, he said a judge’s personal data was leaked on social media after he spoke up. “That is an intimidation,” he said.
“The state is to protect the judges and independence of the judiciary. When it becomes the aggressor, which each high court is saying, that is what is the issue and it is happening,” he remarked, lamenting this had persisted throughout Pakistan’s history and was continuing today. Justice Mandokhail also noted that two members of the bench were threatened once the present case was taken up, in an apparent reference to letters sent to them with a toxic substance.
“Leave the high court judges aside … the notice we have taken; what is happening with us? Can there be independence in this manner?” the judge asked. Justice Minallah reiterated the “onus” was on the state to protect judges. “There are judges we know who are just told ‘your child studies at so and so place’ and it is the state which is doing it,” he alleged.
Justice Hilali, meanwhile, questioned why the high courts were not implementing the suggestions they had proposed rather than seeking the apex court’s permission. Justice Shah observed that high courts had “all powers, including that of contempt of court,” adding all courts should be empowered. He observed the suo motu case had enabled the judiciary to muster the courage to highlight excesses.
“The state is to protect the independence of the judiciary,” remarked Justice Minallah. “There has been a partnership between the judiciary and the establishment for the past 76 years. That culture continues,” he said to the CJP saying there was no such culture in the Supreme Court. “If there was any interference in my work and if I could not withstand the pressure, I would go home,” he remarked, adding he was working for judicial independence from within.
“And the greatest threat to independence was from the Supreme Court, not from the outside, in my opinion. I have lived through it; I have experienced it so these are not empty words. Please do not include me in the 76 years of Pakistan’s history and there are many such persons who should not be included,” he remarked, with Justice Minallah acknowledging that he had not condemned all. “There have been exceptions,” he said, adding there had been no influence on the IHC during his tenure as the IHC chief justice.
Concluding the hearing, the SC ordered lawyers’ bodies to submit their responses on the matter by the next hearing, adding they should submit a unanimous response and provide differing viewpoints separately. The court also directed the federal government to submit a response, if it wished, through the AGP. CJP Isa said that if any allegations “refer to any [intelligence] agency, the said agency should respond” through the AGP.
The court then adjourned the hearing until May 7, while noting no new petitioners would be made respondents in the case.