ISLAMABAD
\nChief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial has remarked that the CJP can neither be asked to withdraw from a bench nor his or any other\u2019s judge\u2019s powers can be trimmed by just levelling allegations while Justice Munib Akhtar questioned the government\u2019s decision to object to the constitution of the SC bench, asking whether the government had accepted them as authentic already.
\nThe CJP made the remarks as a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court resumed on Tuesday hearing of four pleas challenging the formation of a judicial commission led by Justice Qazi Faez Isa to probe audio leaks.
\nThe bench is comprised of CJP Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed. The Supreme Court adjourned indefinitely the hearing of the petitions after lawyers completed their arguments about the objection to the formation of the bench.
\nAs the hearing began, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan made the first move as he took to the rostrum and read out loud the government\u2019s objections to the five-judge bench hearing the case. He also read out the apex court\u2019s order issued after the previous hearing.
\nCJP Bandial went on to express his dismay over the government\u2019s decision to form the commission without informing him. Then, the CJP asked the AGP: \u201cWhat point do you want to speak on? You are missing one thing.\u201d
\nAs the AGP stared at the chief judge, the CJP pointedly said the post of the chief justice was \u201cconstitutional\u201d. \u201cNo one can assume the charge of chief justice on the basis of an assumption. The CJP appoints a caretaker CJP if he is not available. In this case, the chief justice was available but wasn\u2019t informed about the formation of the commission,\u201d Justice Bandial observed, adding \u201cPresent your arguments on these points,\u201d he said and directed the AGP to understand the law before reading out previous judgments issued by the court.
\nMansoor Awan said he wanted to first present arguments on the bench formation. The CJP intervened \u201cIf you raise the point that three of these judges are controversial then you will have to explain the basis on which you assumed that there is conflict among three of us?\u201d
\nThe CJP further remarked \u201cI want you to focus on the more important issue instead of others,\u201d he remarked, noting that another pressing matter was the freedom of judiciary.
\nAGP Awan insisted he wished to present his arguments against the constitution of the bench, but CJ Bandial dismissed him saying that if he wanted to point out that three of the judges were \u201ccontroversial\u201d then he \u201cwill have to explain the basis of the assumption of the conflict\u201d.
\nThe AGP while reading out the audio leaks commission\u2019s terms of reference (TORs), said that \u201cone of the leaked audios is related to the CJ\u2019s mother-in-law.\u201d Justice Muniab Akhtar took exception to Sanaullah\u2019s presser on audio leak allegedly featuring top judge\u2019s family.
\nJustice Bandial asked if the government had exhausted its resources to trace those behind recording and leaking audios. \u201cHow and where are the audio leaks emerging from? Who is behind this?\u201d the top judge put up a query.
\n\u201cOne of the audio leaks is related to the CJP\u2019s mother-in-law,\u201d the AGP pointed out. At that, Justice Munib Akhtar asked if the case being heard at the moment concerned the veracity of the audio leaks. The AGP responded that the government had only formed a commission at this point and its purpose was to determine the authenticity of the leaks.
\n\u201cIs the federal government not aware of whether the audio leaks are authentic or not?\u201d Justice Akhtar asked. \u201cSenior cabinet members even held press conferences on the leaks; is it not true that the interior minister held a press conference? \u201cSome audios were even played in the press conference,\u201d the judge noted.
\n\u201cIs it lawful for someone, who doesn\u2019t know about the truth of the audio leaks, to raise objections to the bench?\u201dJustice Akhtar further stated that he was inquiring about the maintainability of the AGP\u2019s appeal seeking the reconstitution of the bench. \u201cWhy did the interior minister hold the press conference? Can such carelessness be shown?\u201d he went on to ask. \u201cAfter such a statement, the minister should have been removed or resigned.\u201d
\nFor his part, Awan asked if a minister\u2019s statement could be considered the government\u2019s stance on the matter. \u201cIt is not in my knowledge if someone had held a press conference,\u201d he said.
\nHowever, Justice Akhtar asserted that the federal cabinet should have shown \u201ccollective responsibility\u201d on such an important issue. \u201cA minister talking about tea is different, but here a statement was given on an important issue,\u201d he said.
\nAt that, the AGP asked the court to see if the interior minister\u2019s statement was issued before May 19 or after. \u201cWow, what justice with the judiciary,\u201d the CJP quipped. \u201cFirst judges were ridiculed through the audios and then it is being said that these leaks will be investigated.\u201d
\nJustice Akhtar also remarked, \u201cThis is an easy way to remove any judge from a bench \u2026 make an audio with their name.\u201d He then contended that there legal reasons involved in judges recusing themselves from benches. \u201cThis option is not available for anyone to come and say that this judge can\u2019t hear this case,\u201d the judge remarked
\nAt one point, the CJP inquired, \u201cThe question is who planted the audio leaks? Has the government tried to find out who is behind this?\u201d Find out whether the Twitter handle is operated locally or from outside the country,\u201d he said.
\nAwan replied that the government was looking into these questions through the commission. \u201cHow were the calls recorded and all such queries will be reviewed by the commission,\u201d he said.
\nThe AGP further maintained that the matter was in its initial stages currently, adding that as per the federal cabinet, the recordings were \u201calleged audios\u201d. \u201cOnly this statement of the government should be seen,\u201d he said, highlighting that apart from the cabinet, statements of any ministers should be seen in a personal capacity.
\n\u201cIf the defence minister gives a statement, should that not be seen as the government\u2019s stance too?\u201d Justice Akhtar asked. \u201cIf a matter turns out to be relevant to all the judges of the Supreme Court, then this theory can be applied as the doctrine of necessity,\u201d the AGP replied.
\nAt one point during the hearing, Justice Akhtar recalled that no objections were raised to the bench during the Benazir Bhutto case. \u201cPhone calls of four out of seven judges hearing the case were tapped. Did the judges, whose calls were tapped, not take the right decision in that case?\u201d he asked. Awan responded, \u201cThe government\u2019s case is not on the bias, but the conflict of interest.\u201d
\nMeanwhile, Justice Bandial asked if the government\u2019s objection was only to the judiciary proceedings or also to the execution of the court\u2019s administrative affairs.
\nThe AGP argued that a person could not be a judge of their own cause, assuring the bench that the government did not have any ill-intention in the matter. \u201cChanges in the bench will not affect the right of the petitioners who approached the court,\u201d he added.
\nAwan subsequently requested the court to review the appeal regarding the reconstitution of the bench and concluded his arguments. Presenting his arguments, SCBA lawyer Shoaib Shaheen said, \u201cThe audio leaks were considered to be true and it was said that the freedom of the judiciary was affected.\u201d
\nHe argued the TORs of the commission did not mention those involved in tapping phone calls. \u201cAll the audios emerged after the suo motu of the Punjab elections,\u201d the lawyer claimed. \u201cWho recorded the audios? All the audios were brought forth through one hacker.\u201d
\n\u201cWhere was Pemra (Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority) amid this? Conspiracies were hatched to divide the judiciary. \u201cThe judiciary\u2019s freedom is very important \u2026 people are looking towards the courts,\u201d he said.
\nAs the SCBA lawyer concluded his arguments, AGP Awan came to the rostrum and said that the government\u2019s plea regarding the reconstitution of the bench was not related to bias but the conflict of interest. He requested the court to overlook Shaheen\u2019s arguments in this regard.
\n\u201cWe will think about it,\u201d the CJP replied. He appreciated the arguments presented by Awan and Shaheen, saying that the court\u2019s order restraining the audio leaks panel from going ahead with its task was still in place.
\nSubsequently, the hearing was adjourned indefinitely with Justice Bandial saying that the court would ponder upon its decision regarding the government\u2019s plea.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
ISLAMABAD Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Umar Ata Bandial has remarked that the CJP can neither be asked to withdraw from a bench nor his or any other\u2019s judge\u2019s powers can be trimmed by just levelling allegations while Justice Munib Akhtar questioned the government\u2019s decision to object to the constitution of the SC bench, asking […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-335864","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-top-news"},"yoast_head":"\n