Malik M. Ashraf<\/p>\n
Justice Sardar Ishaq Zafar of Islamabad High Court who was hearing a case regarding contempt of court regarding defiance of the court orders concerning visitation and meetings with Imran Khan by the lawyers and party leaders was so incensed by the cancellation of the cause list and consolidation of all cases in this regard for hearing by a larger bench that he decided to initiate contempt proceedings against the deputy registrar of the IHC, additional attorney general as well as the newly constituted bench. He also challenged the authority of the Chief justice to transfer any case to another bench without the consent of the judge already hearing the case. The decision to form a larger bench was taken on the request of Superintendent Adiala Jail who had cited logistical challenges in appearing before multiple benches.
\nReportedly during the contempt proceedings when the deputy registrar told him that the cause list had been cancelled on the orders of the Chief Justice he said you should have blown my court with dynamite instead of doing this. When the PTI lawyer pointed out that the state and the jail superintendent were not even parties to the case the judge said \u201cWe are worried about own institution. The guided missile initially aimed at you has been re-directed at the judiciary. If the state insists on enforcing its will, then his presence in court will serve no purpose\u201d
\nThe reaction of the judge and what he said needs to be evaluated in proper perspective for the benefit of the general public. First of all, it is imperative to emphasize that the Chief Justice as the administrative head of the apex court has the power to constitute benches for hearing cases brought before the court or assigning cases from one bench to another bench as well as ensuring the conduct of judicial business in the court. The concerned judge has tried to create unnecessary fuss in this regard reinforcing the existing polarization in the judiciary. His challenge to the authority of the Chief justice of IHC can be better understood in the backdrop of the fact that he was among the five judges who had filed petition against the transfer of judges from other high courts to IHC and the subsequently announced seniority list. He probably has given vent to his own frustration. The constitution allows the President to transfer a judge from any high court to the other high court.
\nThe remarks of the judge are highly objectionable and incendiary. These remarks have multiple connotations loaded with serious consequences. He is accusing the state of subduing the judiciary without any corroborative evidence and also impliedly suggesting that first the government was suppressing PTI and now it has shifted the target towards judiciary. It also indicates his sympathy towards PTI besides reflecting on his credentials as an impartial and independent judge. His remarks and conduct have earned him undeserved publicity. The judges are not supposed to do any thing that earns them unnecessary publicity. They are also under obligation to observe restraint in regards to difference with other judges. The judge has created a situation of confrontation within IHC. While he will be hearing the contempt proceedings initiated by him the larger bench will also be dealing with consolidated petitions on the same issue. What will be the outcome of the prevailing situation and which verdict will ultimately hold remains to be seen. The portents however point towards a very dangerous situation.
\nI am afraid the judge has violated the code of conduct for judges issued by the Supreme Judicial Council. Perhaps it would be pertinent to quote articles of the code to put the things in proper perspective. Article V of the code says \u201cFunctioning as he does in full view of the public, a Judge gets thereby all the publicity that is good for him. He should not seek more. In particular, he should not engage in any public controversy, least of all on a political question, notwithstanding that it involves a question of law.\u201d Further Article IX reiterates \u201cIn his judicial work, and his relations with other Judges, a Judge should act always for the maintenance of harmony within his own Court, as well as among all Courts and for the integrity of the institution of justice. Disagreement with the opinion of other Judge whether of equal or of inferior status should invariably be expressed in terms of courtesy and restraint\u201d.
\nAs is evident the judge has committed unwarranted indiscretion in maligning the state and making a partisan remark unbecoming of a judge of the superior judiciary. He sounded more like a politician than a judge. He has rendered himself vulnerable to appropriate action against him either in the form of a reference to the Supreme Judicial Council or any other permissible administrative measures which discourage other judges to exhibit similar behaviour as well as goes to reduce polarization within the judiciary. This country has already suffered tremendously due to the indiscretions committed by judges of the superior courts which have had debilitating impact on dispensation of justice besides political and socio-economic development of the country.
\nThe nation is at the cross-roads particularly due to the existential challenge posed by the burgeoning acts of terrorism. Apart from the security forces dealing with the terrorist entities all stakeholders have to act in unison to face the challenge as rightly pointed out by the COAS in his address to the national security committee of the parliament and a shift from soft-state to the hard-state. In this regard judiciary has a very pivotal role. I am afraid a divided and partisan judiciary could weaken the response of the nation to deal with the challenge. The judges first of all have to revisit their own conduct and collectively sustain the efforts of the nation to eliminate the scourge of terrorism by dispensing quick justice in this regard.<\/p>\n
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at ashpak10@gmail.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Malik M. Ashraf Justice Sardar Ishaq Zafar of Islamabad High Court who was hearing a case regarding contempt of court regarding defiance of the court orders concerning visitation and meetings with Imran Khan by the lawyers and party leaders was so incensed by the cancellation of the cause list and consolidation of all cases in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[3489],"class_list":{"0":"post-468431","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-article","7":"tag-malik-m-ashraf"},"yoast_head":"\n