Daily Times

Requests apex court to pass orders fixing liability for those who undermined judicial independence.

The Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) on Thursday filed a petition in the Supreme Court (SC) to probe the allegations made by six IHC judges against interference in judicial affairs. On March 25, 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 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 Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa summoned a full court meeting of the Supreme Court’s judges. In a petition, the IHCBA called for a probe into the letter. It recommended that upon completion of such a probe, the apex court “pass appropriate orders to affix liability for those who undermined independence of judiciary by resort to all manner of interference in the judicial work of the judges concerned.”

The petition also called upon the top court to delineate any matters from the IHC letter which fell within the SJC’s exclusive jurisdiction and “if deemed appropriate, make recommendations for due consideration of such matters by the SJC”. The association urged the court to not restrict itself to the issues raised in the letter but also guide the way forward to eliminate the “possibility of vertical interference and collateral interference”. It added that the petition be attached to the suo motu case to “serve the ends of justice”.

The IHCBA asserted itself as “the primary stakeholder” in the matter of the IHC judges’ letter and expressed its commitment to the “exemplary interface between the bar and the bench with the underlying purpose of sustaining efficient and effective administration of justice”. The association highlighted that there was “no room for any kind of interference (overt or covert) in the discharge of judicial functions by any court of law by any external element, including but not limited to the executive branch of the state and/or by any and/or all of its instrumentalities and/or agencies.

“Intimidation or harassment of a judge of a high court, or a judge of the court subordinate to it, or those discharging quasi-judicial functions/responsibilities at a tribunal established by law is not fair game. It is an affront to constitutionalism and a brazen attack on the independence of the judiciary.”