ISLAMABAD: The decorum of the Supreme Court seemed contravened when the Federal Ombudsperson confabulated with the Attorney General of Pakistan unkindly on his plea before the bench for restraining her from talks with the media.
“The way I was called and harassed for tendering an apology before the Lahore High Court judge, it was my right to speak in the media,” replied Federal Ombudsperson for Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace, Justice (retd) YasminAbbasi. She added that summoning of the court was another thing while the way she was treated for tendering an apology was not a norm.
However, Justice Amir Hani Muslim, who was heading a three-judge bench on the first hearing of the suo motu case, expressed displeasure and advised both not to converse with each other directly. A three-judge bench of the top court on Tuesday heard the suo moto case over the arrest warrants of LHC serving judge issued by the federal ombudsperson after a day she tendered apology before him in contempt case. On May 11, the Chief Justice Anwar ZaheerJamali took suo moto action under Article 184(3) of the Constitution on a press clipping of a newspaper containing the story captioned as “Ombudsperson issues warrant for judge a day after apology”.
According to the news report Federal Ombudsperson for Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace, YasminAbbasi, had issued a warrant for the arrest of serving Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah one day after she tendered an unconditional apology to the judge for her ‘contemptuous’ conduct.
During the course of hearing YasminAbbassi appeared before the bench and informed the court that the suo moto action cannot be decided without hearing a petition, early filed by her, wherein jurisdiction of courts is challenged.
She argued that LHC was time and again granting interim relief to male lawyers despite the matter of harassment against them was pending adjudication before her. She said that LHC on January 11 suspended her judgment and interim order. She argued that the high court exercised powers beyond its jurisdiction which is illegal adding she filed a petition in the top court, wherein she has challenged the jurisdiction of courts.
She argued that there was a bar of jurisdiction for constitutional courts under section 18 of Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act 2013. She pleaded before the court to fix the petition wherein she has challenged the jurisdiction of courts for deciding a suo moto case. The top court clubbed the petition with suo moto notice and adjourned the hearing till the second week of June. The court also suspended a warrant against the serving judge till final disposal of the case. Later through a press statement, the federal ombudsperson said that she would file a written reply along with preliminary objections adding there was no question of any apology nor was it ever tendered though it appeared in the order of LHC judge. “I firmly hold the view as Ombudsperson that the orders of the learned single judge were illegal and void besides being contemptuous and also against the code of conduct to be followed by a judge,” she stated.
She said that she tried her best to avoid this unpleasant situation but the judge left her no choice except to invoke her contempt power.
“I will establish in my written response that I have got the highest regard for the SC and that is why I will bring the true facts and the correct legal position to light especially when I am fully conscious of the fact that in the absence of proper assistance the courts often become the subject of criticism,” said the federal ombudsperson.