A six-member Supreme Court (SC) bench has resumed hearing a case pertaining to allegations made by six Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges regarding interference by the country’s security apparatus in judicial matters.
Headed by Chief Justice of PaÂÂkistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, the bench includes justices Athar Minallah, Mansoor Ali Shah, Jamal Khan MandoÂkhail, Musarrat Hilali and Naeem Akhtar Afghan. The proceedings are being streamed live on the SC’s website and its YouTube channel.
In late March, six IHC judges — out of a total strength of eight — wrote a startling letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) members, regarding attempts to pressure judges through the abduction and torture of their relatives as well as secret surveillance inside their homes.
The letter was signed by judges Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Saman Rafat Imtiaz.
A day later, calls had emerged from various quarters for a probe into the investigation, amid which CJP Isa summoned a full court meeting of the SC judges.
In a meeting, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and CJP Isa had decided to form an inquiry commission, which was later approved by the federal cabinet.
However, ex-CJP Tassaduq Hussain Jillani — tasked to head the one-man inquiry commission — recused himself from the role, urging Justice Isa to “resolve the issues raised in the letter at the institutional level”. At the same time, the top court took suo motu notice of the matter.
Justice Yahya Afridi, who was among the seven-member bench that presided over the last hearing, had recused himself from the case. At the previous hearing, CJP Isa had asserted that “any attack” on the judiciary’s independence would not be tolerated while hinting at forming a full court to hear the case.
Besides the suo motu, the SC has also taken up more than 10 petitions and applications seeking its intervention, which were filed by various bar associations and had been clubbed together.
Last month, an IHC full court decided to introduce several measures, including the reactivation of “empoÂwered” inspection teams to put an end to the alleged meddling. Later, a four-point “unanimous proposal”, signed by all eight IHC judges, was issued that largely relied on existing laws to counter any interference.
At the previous hearing, CJP Isa had noted that the “five high courts have filed their responses/proposals/suggestions” in the case.
Justice Minallah had observed that the Lahore High Court was “endorsing what the IHC has said”. Meanwhile, the Peshawar High Court had proposed legislation for stipulating the respective mandate of intelligence agencies, noting that interference in the “working of superior judiciary by executive organs of state is an open secret”.
The SC had ordered the petitioners — bar councils and associations — to submit their response by today. It had also said that the federal government and any intelligence agency concerned with the allegations could respond through the attorney general of Pakistan (AGP).
Today, AGP Mansoor Usman Awan appeared before the court. Khawaja Ahmed Husain appeared as Aitzaz Ahsan’s counsel.
The hearing
At the outset of the hearing, AGP Awan requested the court for more time to present his arguments as he had not received a copy of the April 30 hearing.
Stating that he also had to speak with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on the matter, he sought time till tomorrow.
CJP Isa then inquired the counsels of the bar councils and associations how long they would take to present their arguments.
The top judge said that first, counsels representing lawyer organisations would be heard and then those who are pleading on behalf of individuals.
Upon Justice Isa’s directive, the AGP then read aloud the short order from the last hearing. “As highlighted by all the high courts, this is the most serious and grave matter undermining the independence of the judiciary, which cannot be trivialised,” he quoted the order as saying.
The CJP then summoned the Pakistan Bar Council’s (PBC) lawyer to the rostrum, noting that its members had submitted separate responses and could “not come on a single page even for the judiciary’s independence”.
Justice Minallah asked the counsel if it would not have been better to summon a meeting and agree on a unanimous response. “Whatever their opinion was, it is equally important,” he added.
The chief justice then remarked, “If the goal is the same… there is no controversial or political matter […] surely you both would be standing on the same side.”
Reading out an excerpt of the IHC judges’ letter pertaining to the SJC, the PBC lawyer said that the “segment may be referred to the SJC in order to provide guidance and some appropriate amendments or insertions may be made to the code of conduct for judges regarding their interactions with the executive in such circumstances”.
Noting the allegations in the letter regarding a secret camera in a judge’s house, the counsel said the alleged offences fall within the scope of criminal offences.
The PBC suggested the formation of a judicial commission comprising of one or more sitting judges to probe the matter to “thoroughly investigate the allegations and fix responsibility”.
“Nevertheless, judges of the honourable high courts and subordinate courts possess the authority to prosecute any individuals who interfere with the judicial work under section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code,” the lawyer stated.
“It is imperative to establish a precedent for prosecuting such individuals to serve as a deterrent in society and uphold the sanctity of the judicial forces,” he added. The counsel then read out section 228 of the PPC and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
At one point, Justice Minallah observed, “One of the high courts has gone to the extent of saying that it’s a phenomenon which amounts to the subversion of the Constitution. The PBC has probably not formulated its recommendations while considering those reports.
“Speaking for myself, it is not just the six judges’ letter; they have highlighted a formula which has existed,” he added, asking what deterrence can be created when the Faizabad sit-in judgment had also failed to do so.
The counsel then said “judges should be encouraged to exercise existing laws”, at which CJP Isa summarised that the PBC was suggesting a probe and that the judges use the criminal laws to deal with the issue.
Contents of letter by IHC judges
Dated March 25, the letter was signed by IHC Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Saman Rafat Imtiaz.
It had 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 had been 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 had 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 had 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 had 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 surveÂillance equipment was recÂovered, it showed that “prÂiÂvate 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 had 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 had 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 had 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 had said.
More to follow
