AGP asked to assist court: CJP terms conduct of judge Arshad Malik 'extraordinary'

The Supreme Court on Tuesday summoned the attorney general for Pakistan (AGP) on July 23 to assist the court regarding alleged video scandal of former Accountabil-ity Court Judge Arshad Malik. A three-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed and Justice Umar Ata Bandial, heard the petitions of Advocate Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza, Advocate Sohail Akhtar and Advocate Tariq Asad.
PML-N stalwart Javed Hashmi and PkMAP leader Mehmood Khan Achakzai were also present during the hearing. The petitioners urged the Supreme Court to constitute an inquiry commission comprising a judge of the Supreme Court to probe the veracity of allegations levelled by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Vice President Maryam Nawaz in a press conference in Lahore. The petitioners also urged the Supreme Court to initiate contempt of court proceedings against PML-N leaders for maligning the judiciary and conduct a forensic audit of the video showing Arshad Malik's meetings with 'notorious' persons.
The Chief Justice after hearing the petitioners summoned AGP Anwar Mansoor on July 23 to assist the court in this regard. The court order said; "After hearing AGP Anwar Mansoor we would see what to do as many things, after hearing the petitioners, have come to our mind." He said the factual aspects are required to be ascertained whether or not to get the issues probed? "We have to see whether the verdict against Nawaz Sharif in Al-Azizia Mills was announced before or after the meeting [of Judge Arshad with Nasir Butt]. What is on the evidence? Whether relying on that evidence is there any need to re-write the judgement or send the matter for retrial?" he said. "By the grace of Allah we are strong to look into this matter," the CJP remarked.
Justice Khosa also asked whether this court should interfere in the matter and what would be its affect on the verdict [Al-Azizia case]. He said, "The conduct of judge [Arshad Malik] is before us. It is extraordinary and must be looked into," he said. However, he said immediate suspension or termination of his judgement against Nawaz Sharif is not in their mind.
The petitioners argued that their applications are related to the independence of the judiciary. Tariq Asad Advocate, the petitioner, said that institutions are interfering into the political affairs instead of performing their own job. He questioned why Judge Arshad met with 'notorious' persons. It seemed that he was involved in the corrupt practices, he opined.
Citing House of Lords judgement in General Pinochet case, Tariq Asad said its verdict was set aside due to the biasness of one of the members of House of Lords.
The Chief Justice remarked that Judge Arshad is under the executive control of Lahore High Court and his appeal lies before the LHC.
The Chief Justice said the credibility of the video be examined by a competent forum. There are several laws applicable included electronic law and privacy law, he said, adding how video of a judge can be made without his consent. For the last 100 years, many judgments have been rendered about the authenticity of audio and video recordings. "If the report of competent forum is admissible then the court would have to see its relevance and what the evidentiary value of the video is," he further said.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial said whatever happening nowadays is extraordinary and shocking. The institutions have to prove themselves by sticking to the law. No emotions and immediate actions are required; however, serious efforts are needed to unearth the truth.
Ch Munir Sadiq, counsel of Ishtiaq Mirza, argued that contempt of court proceeding should be initiated against the PML-N leaders for maligning the judiciary through the video of the judge. Justice Khosa remarked there is procedure for law of contempt proceeding, adding; "By initiation of contempt proceeding, we are assuming that the allegations against judge [Arshad] are wrong."
The Chief Justice said they do not take suo motu on the demand of anyone, but if the court feels the matter is of serious nature then it takes the suo motu. "When we have shown restraint then it was said that the apex court is not doing anything, but when the courts take notice of issues then people say that the courts are doing judicial activism," he added. The case was adjourned until July 23.