Achi news desk-
A body of lawyers in Balochistan announced plans on Saturday to challenge the formation of a commission of inquiry by the federal government under the supervision of former chief justice of Pakistan Tassaduq Hussain Jillani to examine a letter from six judges of the Islamabad High Court that alleged interference by officials. from a security agency.
However, a split has emerged among the country’s lawyers on the subject after a national body of lawyers announced on Saturday their support for the commission.
Challenge the commission
The Balochistan High Court Bar Association (BHCBA) has decided to challenge the formation of the inquiry commission before the Supreme Court.
BHCBA and member of Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) from Balochistan Munir Ahmed Kakar said The Friday Times on Saturday that the association rejected the federal government’s decision to form a one-man commission of inquiry.
He said the BHCBA would file a petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in the Supreme Court in the coming week.
He argued that the BHCBA believed that the allegations made by the six judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) were quite serious in nature and should be examined by judges serving in the higher judiciary.
Kakar said that, in their petition, they will ask the Supreme Court to form a judicial commission consisting of five senior judges from the main court to investigate the matter. This is not a new idea, and has already been proposed by senior lawyer Hamid Khan, who is aligned with Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
The PTI has already rejected any commission to be formed by the government and has demanded that the top court take this as suo moto.
Kakar said at least six members of the PBC supported the demands of the BHCBA.
If a petition is filed, it will first be scrutinized by the registrar’s office at the Supreme Court. If it does not attract objections from the registrar’s office, it will be put before a three-judge committee — created under the Practice and Procedure Act 2023 — to decide whether to rule on the matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
It is relevant to note here that this is the second petition to be filed on the matter under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
Last week, after the letter came to light, Advocate Mian Dawood submitted a petition to the Supreme Court, asking it to form a powerful commission of inquiry to look into the allegations made by the IHC judges. He further asked the high court to take strict action or issue a direction against all those found guilty of misconduct in the investigation.
Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa heads the three-member committee, which decides whether petitions filed under Article 184(3) should be heard and the composition of the bench that should hear them. The other members include Senior Puisne Judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Muneeb Akhtar.
In the days after Dawood’s petition, Justice Shah accompanied CJP Isa to his meeting with Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif two days ago, when it was proposed that the government form a commission of inquiry to look into the allegations.
Kakar believes that the content of the letter written by the IHC judges unequivocally shows interference with the administration of justice, violation of fundamental rights, and illegal interference with the rule of law and access to justice by intelligence agencies.
He said it was alarming to hear that judges’ residences were bugged, thereby not only violating their privacy but also providing ammunition to blackmail them.
“As an organisation, we must rally to maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary during this critical period. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s judicial history is replete with decisions that have undermined the integrity and dignity of the judicial system,” said Kakar.
He wondered how Chief Justice of Pakistan Isa could approve the formation of a commission of inquiry by the government, which itself was a beneficiary of political engineering.
Those keeping an eye on the recent controversy and chemistry between Chief Justice Isa and the federal government see little chance of either petition being entertained. They point out that the judiciary used the suggestion of a meeting with the prime minister and for the government to form a commission of inquiry after developing a consensus among a majority of Supreme Court judges.
Legal experts say that the Terms of Reference (ToRs) for the commission of inquiry have been discussed in detail by CJP Isa and Chief Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
PBC throws its weight behind the govt commission
Meanwhile, the formation of the commission appears to have split lawyers across the country after the apex national lawyers’ body, Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), approved the federal government’s decision to appoint the former chief justice of Pakistan Justice ( retired) Tassaduq Hussain Jillani as head of the inquiry commission to investigate allegations made by six HGI judges. The Punjab Bar Council also welcomed the separate commission.
“Retired Chief Justice of Pakistan, Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, has been appointed to head the commission to investigate such allegations, a decision they welcome and support,” a statement read. which was formally announced by PBC on Saturday.
PBC officials “condemned, criticized and strongly rejected” the request of a political party (the PTI) which called for the resignation of CJP Isa.
PBC Vice Chairman Riazat Ali Sahar and Executive Committee Chairman Farooq Hamid Naek characterized PTI’s demand as part of a premeditated smear campaign against the chief justice, which continuously tarnishes and targets the chief justice for political advantage and damages the judiciary.
The PBC supported the idea that the allegations presented by the six judges of the IHC should be promptly examined by the forum which was recently discussed and decided in the meeting between CJP Isa and PM Shehbaz.
The PBC said in its statement that “if proven to be true, these allegations are a serious threat to the organisation, which requires serious action.”
“Judges must be given privacy and protection, which is the main responsibility of the state,” he added, further claiming that other organizations have no authority to penetrate the judiciary in any way.
“Any threat or activity aimed at undermining the judiciary should be dealt with strictly.”
The PBC reiterated that they and the entire legal fraternity stand firmly with the chief justice of Pakistan and the entire judiciary.
They emphasized that it was completely unacceptable and intolerable for the council and the legal fraternity to stand silent regarding such attacks on the judiciary.
Furthermore, they expressed their unwavering support for the judiciary as an institution, ensuring its integrity and independence.
He said that the legal fraternity stands in solidarity with the judiciary and aims to identify an appropriate solution to their concerns.
The PBC said they would call a general body meeting very soon to discuss the matter further.
It is pertinent to note that the Punjab Bar Council, in its press release, said that criticizing the institution has become easy and fashionable. The Punjab Bar Council demanded a comprehensive investigation into the matter considering all aspects.
Judicial waiver
Earlier on Saturday, the federal government approved the name of Justice (retired) Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, former chief justice of Pakistan, as the head of the inquiry commission.
The commission of inquiry will examine the veracity of the allegations, determine whether any official was directly involved in interfering with the affairs of the judiciary, and recommend action against any agency, department, or state institution based on the facts it decide on them.
The commission will have the power to investigate any other matter it considers important and which is connected to the emergency.
Legal wizards questioned whether the commission of inquiry should recommend to the federal government that it contact the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) if it is found that allegations made by the IHC judges were not factual.
They further say that a commission of inquiry headed by a retired judge will have the power to summon serving judges, further raising questions about whether the serving judges would prefer to appear before and answer the questions of a sitting judge retired.
They add that the judges will have to present their affidavits and as a result the person accused would be asked to present their response from the relevant security agencies. They fear that the letter could backfire as it could be difficult for judges to establish their claims against agencies.
An experienced former additional solicitor, Tariq Mahmood Khokhar said The Friday Times that commissions of inquiry in Pakistan are not always effective.
“They lack the inherent power to effect change; they rely on outsiders (usually governments) to implement their recommendations,” he said, adding that democratic accountability through parliamentary committees of inquiry is much more effective.
“Even better would be the high courts ruling under the existing law to protect their independence,” Kokhar said. He added that judges are, and should be, the guardians of their independence.
“It is difficult to make sense of an organization known for judicial activism, which chooses to reject a judge in matters of alleged coercion against judges,” he said.
