[🇵🇰] Meddling in Judicial Affairs

  • Thread starter Thread starter ghazi
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 4
  • Views Views 2K
[🇵🇰] Meddling in Judicial Affairs
4
2K
More threads by ghazi

G Pakistan Affairs Forum

ghazi

A Legend
Moderator
Jan 25, 2024
111,139
831
Origin

Residence

[H2]'Meddling' claims bring Tyrian White case back into limelight[/H2]

Malik Asad
April 15, 2024

ISLAMABAD: The Tyrian White case — a petition filed against former prime minister Imran Khan for concealing his alleged daughter — seems to have become something more than a paternity matter.

This is because the case was one of the only matters specifically referenced by Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges as having invited "pressure" from intelligence operatives after a letter written by six judges to the Supreme Judicial Council became public.

"Considerable pressure was brought to bear on judges who had opined that the petition was not maintainable, by operatives of the ISI, through friends and relatives of these judges," said the letter addressed to the SJC on March 25.

Following an abortive attempt by the government to form a one-member commission to probe the matter, the complaints of meddling in judicial affairs have now been taken up by the Supreme Court in exercise of its suo moto jurisdiction, and are now likely to be deliberated upon by a full court on April 29.


Set to be taken up again after nearly a year, IHC judges said the matter drew 'considerable pressure' from intel operatives who wanted to ensure the plea was deemed 'maintainable'
Referred to in the letter as "Muhammad Sajid vs Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi (Writ Petition No. 3061 of 2022)", this case has been on the back burner since May last year, when IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq dissolved a three-member bench hearing the case. The high court is likely to take up the matter again in the coming days, but the circumstances under which the bench was scuttled seemed quite peculiar, even at the time.

Maintainability and a 'premature' verdict

A three-member larger bench consisting of IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, and Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir had reserved their verdict on March 30, 2023.

During earlier hearings, Justice Kayani had questioned the locus standi (right of audience) of the petitioner, Mohammad Sajid, whereas the presiding judge Justice Farooq appeared to be convinced on this particular aspect.

It should be noted that former IHC chief justice Athar Minallah had earlier dismissed a similar petition.

During the hearing of the petition on March 2, 2023, the counsel for the petitioner argued that Imran Khan had submitted an affidavit to the Superior Court of California in a case related to the custody of Tyrian, his alleged daughter.

But the chief justice corrected him, saying that it was not an affidavit, rather a declaration that was signed by an oath commissioner in Pakistan.

At the time, Justice Kayani had pointed out that the declaration never mentioned that Mr Khan was the father of the girl, and questioned the bona fides of the petitioner, observing that only Tyrian White herself could file a petition seeking paternity rights.

Then, on May 10, the opinions of two judges were uploaded on official website of the court, only to be taken down within minutes.

The registrar office then issued a statement clarifying that "the opinion of two judges was uploaded alone with office notes, which does not constitute [a] judgement of the court".

The statement said the "chief justice has reconstituted the bench for rehearing of the case", and that action was "being taken against those responsible for uploading the opinion without issuance of cause list".

Not seeing eye to eye

The letter by the six IHC judges also hinted that some judges do not see eye to eye with the incumbent chief justice of the country's 'youngest high court'.

The letter recounted a number of communications with the IHC chief justice, especially in the context of the Tyrian White case.

While the judges noted that the IHC CJ had told them that no official from the intelligence agencies would approach them, they complained that the interference continued despite this assurance.

It is telling that senior puisne judge Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani — the senior-most after the chief justice — is one of the authors of the letter.

On the surface, Chief Justice Farooq and Justice Kayani have a good working relationship, as both used to sit on the same division bench and have decided a number of important political cases in the past, including references against Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Nawaz and Asif Ali Zardari.

The two were also part of the original bench hearing the Tyrian White case before it was dissolved.

However, Justice Kayani was recently assailed by a complaint before the Supreme Judicial Council, which accuses him of "inducing and convincing other judges of high court" in connection with the letter.

Retired Justice Noorul Haq N. Qureshi, himself a former senior puisne judge of IHC, told Dawn that differences between the chief justice and the second senior-most judge are "a routine occurrence" in the superior judiciary. He said that the senior-most judge expects power to be shared, but some chief justices want "absolute authority".

"I also experienced the same, but I never complained because I thought it would harm the reputation of the institution that administers justice to the public at large," he said.

Published in Dawn, April 15th, 2024
 
[H2]IHC full court to take up 'meddling' issue today[/H2]
The Newspaper's
April 23, 2024

ISLAMABAD: A full court meeting of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) will deliberate upon proposals on Tuesday (today) to finalise the same before their submission to the Supreme Court in a matter related to the alleged meddling by personnel of intelligence agencies in judicial affairs.

Interestingly, six of the eight IHC judges who will take stock of the issue and come up with recommendations are themselves the complainant in this regard before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

According to a notice circulated among all the eight judges by the IHC registrar office, the meeting will be convened on April 23, at 2:30pm.

The Supreme Court had initiated suo motu proceeding on the letter of six of the eight IHC judges against the alleged meddling in the judicial affairs. In its April 3 order, the SC called for proposals from the main stakeholders in the judicial system and the independence of judiciary, namely the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), Su
ent.

Proposals to be submitted to apex court may be finalised by 25th

"They should suggest what should be the institutional response and mechanism to address the issues like the ones raised in the letter [of IHC judges] and ensure that such issues do not arise in future and, if they do, to fix liability and proceed against those responsible," the order stated. In any such process, it added, the idea was to empower the high courts and their chief justices to deal with issues relating to the judges.
Since the apex court had sought the proposal by April 25, sources said the IHC registrar office circulated the apex court order among the judges and sought their final proposal by the deadline. The IHC administration will then file a consolidated report to the SC.

Initially, a seven-member larger SC bench had conducted a hearing on the suo motu proceedings.

Justice Yahya Afridi, however, recused himself from hearing this case, stating: "This may affect the functioning of the worthy chief justice and judges in their discharge of judicial functions, and would to my mind amount to interference in the independence of high courts."

"To proceed on the proposed action of suo motu would negate the lessons moved into action by public sentiments no matter how pressing the issue may appear," Justice Afridi emphasised, adding that one must also not ignore that the high courts under the Constitution were independent establishments envisaged to regulate not only their administrative functions, but also provide security to and safeguard the judicial officers in the discharge of their judicial functions."

In their letter, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz had hinted at the alleged involvement of ISI in judicial matters.
preme Court Bar Association (SCBA), high courts and the federal governm
 
[H2]SC clubs petitions on 'meddling' by spy agencies[/H2]
Nasir Iqbal | Malik Asad
April 27, 2024

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has clubbed a set of ten petitions and applications seeking the court's intervention in response to allegations of "intelligence agencies' meddling in judicial affairs", which were highlighted following a March 25 letter by six Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges.

Headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, the bench includes Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan. They will resume the case on April 30, initiated on a suo motu. Justice Yahya Afridi has already recused himself from the bench and will no longer participate.

One of the applications concerns impleadment as a party in the hearing, moved by six members of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), seeking an inquiry commission to probe the allegations levelled in the high court judge's letter.

Constitutional petitions by the Lahore High Court Bar Association also requested the appointment of a judicial inquiry by the Supreme Court judges. Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan also sought a judicial inquiry by the Supreme Court judges, while the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) demanded a probe into the allegations. Similarly, the Balochistan High Court Bar Association and Advocate Shahbaz Ali Khan Khosa also requested an inquiry.

IHC submits proposals before apex court to end interference in judicial affairs; judges unanimous in decision to give an 'institutional response'
In one of the petitions Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan through his counsel Khwaja Ahmad Hosain had requested the Supreme Court to declare that the allegations by IHC judges, as well as those by Justice (retd) Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, constitute evidence that the premier intelligence agency namely the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and its operatives were involved in unlawful attempts to influence judicial decisions of IHC and the district judiciary in the federal capital, a development which requires judicial probe.

The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings after former chief justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani had recused himself from becoming part of the one-man commission established to probe the allegations of the executive's interference in judicial affairs.

The decision to proceed under Article 184(3) came a day after a group of lawyers and civil society members wrote a letter addressed to the Supreme Court, in which they said the commission was powerless to probe the claims made by the six judges of the IHC detailing harassment at the hands of intelligence officials.

The petition, moved by Aitzaz Ahsan, pleaded that the Supreme Court should declare any interference in judicial affairs as clearly unlawful and unconstitutional, posing a serious threat to the rule of law and the independence of judiciary.

The petition further urged the Supreme Court to instruct the federal government to terminate the service of all such individuals found involved in such unlawful acts, as determined by the judicial commission, without granting them retirement or other benefits from the national exchequer.

And in case of individuals who have already retired to direct that no retirement or other benefits will be paid to them, the petition contended, adding that the government servants including any serving army officer or ISI operatives, who seek to influence the judicial proceedings or judges will be liable to be terminated forthwith from service without any retirement or other benefits being payable to such individual from the national exchequer.

Likewise, the PBC, through a resolution, had asked for a judicial commission manned by sitting judges of the Supreme Court to address the complaints of meddling by intelligence agencies in judicial affairs.

In the resolution, the PBC requested the Supreme Court to decide the present suo motu case as expeditiously as possible.

The resolution emphasised that judges hold the highest esteem in our nation, carrying significant responsibility for adjudicating cases and meticulously deliberating allegations before reaching verdicts.

Similarly, the IHCBA also sought a probe to hold accountable those responsible for undermining the independence of the judiciary.

IHC submits proposals

In a relevant development, the IHC administration has submitted proposals to end meddling in judicial affairs before the Supreme Court.

The IHC registrar filed the report before the apex court's registrar's office.

The report will be submitted before the apex court bench hearing the suo motu case.

In its April 3 order, the Supreme Court called for proposals from the main stakeholders in the judicial system and the independence of the judiciary, namely the PBC, SCBA, high courts, and the federal government.

"They should suggest what should be the institutional response and mechanism to address the issues like the ones raised in the letter [of IHC judges] and ensure that such issues do not arise in future and, if they do, to fix liability and proceed against those responsible," the order said.

In compliance with the Supreme Court's direction, the provincial high courts as well as the IHC submitted proposals before the apex court.

The IHC's proposal was based on the minutes of the full court meeting held on April 23.

In the meeting, the judges unanimously decided to introduce several measures, including the reactivation of 'empowered' inspection teams to put an end to the alleged meddling of intelligence officials in judicial affairs.

Sources privy to the meeting told Dawn all the high court judges were unanimous that they would not tolerate interference by any intelligence agency in the proceedings of the high court, district courts, and the special courts.

The IHC proposal explained in details how the inspection team would respond to the complaint received from the judges of subordinate judiciary, said the sources.

The judges also decided to give institutional responses against any attempts to interfere in judicial affairs, and the high court, as an institution, would take up the matter with the top authority of the department involved in meddling.

Published in Dawn, April 27th, 2024
 
[H2]Justice Minallah says state has to protect judges, independence of judiciary[/H2]
Abdullah Momand
April 30, 2024

Supreme Court on Tuesday resumes hearing a suo motu case pertaining to allegations of interference in judicial affairs. — DawnNewsTV

Supreme Court on Tuesday resumes hearing a suo motu case pertaining to allegations of interference in judicial affairs. — DawnNewsTV


It mentioned seven instances of alleged interference and intimidation "to influence the outcome of cases of interest" by the intelligence officials, pointing out that when two out of three judges in the bench hearing the plea to disqualify PTI leader Imran Khan for concealing his alleged daughter opined that the case was not maintainable, they were pressured by "operatives of the ISI" through friends and relatives.

The situation got so stressful that one of the judges had to be admitted to hospital due to high blood pressure, the letter said.

According to the six judges, the matter was brought to the notice of the IHC chief justice and the then-CJP. The former informed the judges that he had "spoken to the DG-C of ISI and had been assured that no official from ISI will approach the judges of the IHC".

The letter complained that "interference on the part of intelligence operatives" continued even after IHC CJ's assurance.

It also referred to the abduction of an IHC judge's brother-in-law by armed men who claimed to be ISI operatives. The victim was "administered electric shocks" and "forced to record a video" making false allegations, apparently against the judge.

"Subsequently, a complaint was filed against the judge of IHC before the SJC, accompanied by an orchestrated media campaign to bring pressure to bear upon the judge to resign."

The letter revealed that in May 2023, an IHC inspection judge reported to the chief justice that district court judges were being intimidated and crackers were thrown into the house of one additional district and sessions judge.

The judge was even called to the IHC to verify the claims which he confirmed. But instead of probing the allegations, the judge "was made officer on special duty and transferred to IHC, before being sent back to Punjab as he was a judicial officer on deputation".

The letter said that last year, during routine maintenance, an IHC judge found that his official residence had been bugged with spy cameras concealed in his drawing room and bedroom.

When data from surveillance equipment was recovered, it showed that "private videos of the judge and his family members" were stored. "The matter was brought to the attention of the IHC chief justice. There has been no determination of who installed the equipment and who is to be held accountable," the letter added.

Along with their letter to the SJC, the six judges also attached copies of letters written to Justice Farooq on May 10, 2023 and Feb 12, 2024.

The letters mentioned, among other complaints, efforts of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) personnel to pressurise IHC judges and probe into the tax records of at least one judge "to seek a certain outcome".

They added that it was imperative to determine whether there was a "policy on the part of the executive … implemented by intelligence operatives" to intimidate judges.

"[The] allegations of interference by operatives of ISI have been dealt with and relief has been granted to a former judge of IHC who was wronged. We believe that while such action was necessary, it may not be sufficient," the letter said about Justice Siddiqui's case.

The judges noted that the SJC's code of conduct for judges did not outline the response to such incidents "that are tantamount to intimidation and interfere with judicial independence".

They called for a judicial convention to discuss the interference of intelligence officials "that undermines independence of the judiciary".

The consultation would help the Supreme Court to determine a course of action that judges could take "when they find themselves at the receiving end", the letter said.
 
Muhammad Umair
@MohUmair87

میرے سامنے کوئی مداخلت نہیں ہوئی۔ جسٹس قاضی فائز عیسی
مداخلت آج بھی ہورہی۔ جسٹس اطہر من اللہ​
................
There was no interference in front of me.....Justice Qazi Faiz Isa

The interference is still happening today.....Justice Athar Minullah
 

Latest Posts

Back