The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday dismissed the objections of the last Pakistan Democratic Movement government to the bench hearing cases challenging the inquiry commission constituted to probe the authenticity of audio leaks, declaring the same as an attack on the independence of the judiciary.
\nThe apex court, in a detailed verdict written by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial, said, \u201cThe court\u2019s query about how the CJP or his relative\u2019s interest were involved in the case was \u2018neither answered nor explained\u2019 by the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP).
\nHe candidly admitted though that no pecuniary or propriety interest of either the CJP or his relative was tied with the fate of the said petitions.
\n\u201cWhen asked to explain the term \u2018conflict of interest\u2019 the learned AGP merely clarified that as a ground of recusal it was distinct from \u2018bias\u2019. The latter being an allegation that the Federal Government had not raised.
\n\u201cThe diffidence of the learned AGP to respond to the court\u2019s questions denotes that the objection of the then Federal Government may have been raised nonchalantly possibly to delay a decision on the merit or to harass the concerned judge.\u201d
\nThe order further said that conflict of interest and bias were indeed two distinct grounds on which a party could seek the recusal of a judge from hearing a case.
\n\u201cWhilst conflict of interest is related to the judge\u2019s interest in the subject matter of a particular case, bias is concerned with his state of mind and his feelings towards the parties appearing before him. Since the learned AGP confined his submissions to the ground of conflict of interest only and not on bias, it is clear that the Federal Government does not anticipate any prejudice from the CJP.
\n\u201cThe AGP\u2019s failure to identify the specific cause, and the interest of the CJP or his relative rendered the previous government\u2019s allegations against the top judge \u201cfanciful\u201d.
\n\u201cMoreover, the relative of the CJP is neither a party in these petitions nor is she claimed to be involved in the controversy under adjudication before the court. Therefore, it appeared that the \u2018illusionary claim of conflict of interest\u2019 against the CJP had been alleged, prima facie, to postpone a decision in the case. Such an object appears to be consonant with the Federal Government\u2019s strategy [\u2026] of blocking or delaying the court\u2019s decisions on questions of law requiring the interpretation of constitutional principles.\u201d
\nThe SC noted,\u201cThe judgment also reflected on the previous government\u2019s \u201cinimical\u201d treatment of the top court and some of its judges ever since the recommendation for suo motu notice was made by a two-member bench of the court to the CJ on 16.02.2023.\u201d
\nIt said, \u201cThis exercise is helpful for understanding the likely purpose of the Federal Government in filing the present recusal application because there is a chain of events in which the previous government and its ministers had sought to \u201cerode the authority\u201d of the court and to \u201cblemish the stature of some of its Judges with the object of blocking, delaying or distorting the result of the judgments of the court on the constitutional right of the people to be governed by an elected government.\u201d
\nThe order said that the previous government, through \u201cvarious machinations and stratagems\u201d, had managed to delay adjudication by the court and also discredited its judgments.
\nIt cited the Supreme Court (Review of Judgments and Orders) Act, 2023 enacted by the Parliament \u2013 which had since been struck down by the court \u2013 seeking repeated recusals of certain judges and \u201cincendiary\u201d remarks made by former ministers as examples.
\nIt also said that the then-government \u201ctook refuge\u201d behind the ECP\u2019s (Election Commission of Pakistan) review petition against the April 4 order of holding elections to the Punjab Assembly.
\n\u201cThe court has faced all such actions of the Federal Government with tolerance, forbearance and restraint. However, it goes without saying that any refusal to implement a final and therefore binding judgment of the court can be visited with consequences laid down in the Constitution,\u201d it added.
\nThe order said that the application filed by the Federal Government was declared to be \u201cdevoid of merit and legal force\u201d.
\n\u201cTo our minds the recusal application suffers from the common defect of being motivated and hence constitutes an attack on the independence of the judiciary. In view of the foregoing, the recusal application is dismissed,\u201d the order concluded.
\nIt may be mentioned that the SC had reserved its verdict on the government\u2019s plea on June 6, after hearing arguments from respondents.
\nThe previous coalition government had formed the inquiry commission on May 20, under Section 3 of the Pakistan Commission of Inquiry Act 2017. The commission was led by Justice Qazi Faez Isa and also comprising Chief Justice Balochistan High Court Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Islamabad High Court Chief Justice Aamer Farooq. On May 26, a five- member bench of the top court had restrained the panel from going ahead with its task. The order was passed on a set of petitions moved by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Abid Shahid Zuberi, SCBA Secretary Muqtedir Akhtar Shabbir, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chairman, and Advocate Riaz Hanif Rahi seeking to declare the constitution of the audio leak commission illegal.
\nHowever, the PDM government sought the reconstitution of the five-member bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ahsan, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Shahid Waheed hearing the pleas against the formation of the commission.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday dismissed the objections of the last Pakistan Democratic Movement government to the bench hearing cases challenging the inquiry commission constituted to probe the authenticity of audio leaks, declaring the same as an attack on the independence of the judiciary. The apex court, in a detailed verdict written by Chief […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":325453,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[292],"class_list":{"0":"post-354646","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-top-news","8":"tag-supreme-court"},"yoast_head":"\n