ISLAMABAD: Justice Qazi Faez Isa said if the parliament’s session could be telecast live for transparency and accurate information to the public then why it could not be applied to the judiciary.
Justice Umar Ata Bandial told him [the judge] that if the Court allowed live telecast of the proceedings in this case then it would have to do the same for other cases as well.
Justice Bandial said, “We are concerned with practical and logistical steps. The Supreme Court has to rule on this issue,” adding, that “primarily this is an administrative matter”.
A 10-member bench, headed by Justice Bandial, and comprising Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, and Justice Aminud Din Khan is hearing Justice Faez’s application for live telecast of his review petition against the Supreme Court judgment on Presidential reference.
Justice Isa, arguing the case himself, said the constitutional, and the matters of public interest, should be telecast live.
He then quoted Indian Supreme Court judgments regarding live broadcast of the court proceedings.
The judge told the bench that he does not talk to the media but heard that some journalists offered to make arrangements for live telecast of the proceedings on their TV channels.
Justice Bandial said; “We want journalists and not their capital interest.”
He further said, “Let’s see, if it is adopted by the Supreme Court [live telecast of the instant case]”.
Briefing about the facts of the case for Justice Aminud Din, a new member on the bench, Justice Isa said he and his family were maligned, albeit obliquely, adding, that malicious propaganda was launched against them.
He submitted that for two years “unadulterated” government propaganda, and government-controlled media was used for “bombardment” against him and his family,” he remarked.
“Please put yourself in my shoes.”
“I fight for the future of Pakistan, but efforts were made to dust me out. My wife and children were stigmatised,” he said.
He posed question how they [the members of the bench] would feel, if their wives and children were stigmatised and maligned.
“I want an open court hearing to clear the misconceptions created in the public about me and my family,” said Justice Isa.
The judge then expressed annoyance over the situation concerning the journalists in Pakistan.
He said a senior journalist was picked up from the federal capital, adding that journalists were picked up, beaten and stabbed but it was never investigated who were behind all the heinous acts.
“Some military dictators want power,” he said.
“When 90,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendered before Indian army my heart bled. The Hamoodur Rehman Commission report never came to the limelight. We don’t talk about it and if someone talks on these issues then that person is told he is talking against national security,” Justice Isa said.
Justice Bandial told the judge, “this is the Court of law. We decide matters between two parties.” “If you have grievances against anyone then other forums are available.” “Don’t talk about the matter, theoretically.”
Justice Manzoor asked him “do not show emotion as it will divert your attention”.
Justice Isa stated he was saying all this for Pakistan and not for his own self.
Justice Bandial, at the outset, told Justice Isa that the SC office had received an application of Munir A Malik, who had represented the apex court judge in the main petition against the reference.
Justice Bandial said Munir Malik was not well and suffering from some cardiac issues.
Malik likes to recuse.
The court; therefore, allowed Justice Isa to argue the review petitions against the Supreme Court judgment on Presidential reference.
Justice Bandial said an advocate was a buffer between the client and the court. “Sometime a tense situation arises during the course of the arguments,” he added.
Justice Bandial told Justice Isa, “If you wish to take up the charge then you have to be tolerant, if the question comes from the bench which may be disturbing.”
Justice Isa submitted that if he was out of the line then the Court should guide him instead of admonishing.
Justice Bandial said; “We will not [admonish].”
Justice Isa said he would not be emotional if the questions were asked and would give answers. He, however, requested the bench that during his submission, he should not be interrupted as it would disturb the chain of his arguments.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2021
Comments
Comments are closed.