On March 25, six judges of the IHC asked CJP Isa to convene a judicial convention to look into the issue of intelligence officials interfering in proceedings or “intimidating” judges in a manner that undermines judicial independence.
Six judges of the IHC – Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jehangiri, Justice Sardar Ejaz Yshaq Khan and Justice Saman Rifat Imtiaz – wrote to the chief justice, who is also the presiding judge. . Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
Looking for guidance on the internal organizational “disruption” in judicial proceedings, the judge wrote: “We are writing to ask for guidance from the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) regarding the duty of judges to report and respond to actions taken by intelligence officers, as well as the duty to report such actions to Supreme Court supervisory colleagues and/or members of the judiciary.”
As a result, the Supreme Court on April 1 issued a suo motu notice to the letter of the IHC judge and constituted a seven-member bench headed by CJP Isa to hear the matter.
After the first hearing in the court on April 3, Justice Afridi, who is part of the larger bench, refrained from hearing the suo motu case under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
Hearing today
At the beginning of the hearing, CJP Isa said that the Supreme Court Committee has decided to hear the case under Article 184/3 of the Constitution.
He said that the committee had decided that all the judges present in Islamabad should be summoned.
“Justice Afridi has resigned from the bench,” the CJP said.
The Chief Justice said that a full court could be convened for the next hearing, but it could not be held due to the absence of two judges.
CJP Isa said in the hearing that if anyone wants to implicate himself in the court, it will also be considered as a “liability”.
“Incentives can be from inside, outside, intelligence agencies, colleagues, family members, social media and others,” the CJP said. .
CJP Isa said he is not responsible for the history of the Supreme Court but only for what happened after he became the Chief Justice.
