ISLAMABAD: The federal government opposed the proposed live telecast of Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s review petitions against the apex court’s judgement on Presidential reference.
A 10-member bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata 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, Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, and Justice Aminud Din Khan, was hearing Justice Isa’s application for live screening of his review petition against the Supreme Court’s judgement on a Presidential reference.
When the bench inquired from the Additional Attorney General (AAG), Amir Rehman, about government’s stance on Justice Isa’s application, he replied; “The government will oppose it.”
He, however, sought time till Monday (March 8th) to properly respond to Justice Isa’s application regarding live transmission of the proceeding.
Justice Isa who is arguing his case himself, said the most controversial judgment in the history of Pakistan was the verdict on the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court.
The late Justice Naseem Hassan Shah, who was member of the majority group that rendered the judgement, in an interview he said there was “pressure” on the judges from the military to convict Bhutto, Justice Isa said.
“It was the longest criminal judgement with 963 paragraphs,” he said.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar inquired: “Was the appeal hearing conducted in the open court?” “If that [hearing in open court] had happened then it qualifies to be called a public hearing,” he added.
Justice Isa, in support of his arguments, stated that out of 50 states of the US courts in 47 states have a system of live telecast of court proceedings.
Justice Isa cited the example of live telecast of the Brexit case by the UK’s apex court.
He said: “thousands of miles away people could hear the case live through use of modern technology. If the court sees harm in live telecast of the proceeding then don’t do it, but if the court considers nothing dangerous then take this as the first test case.”
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said the justice system needed to be upgraded by using modern technology and that with the live transmission of the proceedings more transparency would come to the justice system.
He said with the use of DNA, hundreds of convictions were overturned, adding, “we should welcome transparency.”
He said in Punjab cameras had been installed in district courts.
Justice Isa said if there is live telecast of the court proceedings then people in far-flung areas such as Gwadar, Pasni, Lasbella or Mandi Bahauddin or Larkana might know what was happening in the courts.
He pleaded that a 10-judge bench could set a healthy precedent.
He said he is arguing the case not for himself “but for the people of Pakistan”.
“If the petition is declined then not just his but the right of millions of citizens will be denied to live telecast of proceedings,” he added.
Justice Isa said his application on live telecast is more important than his review petition.
He said it is a fit case for determination as this might be a policy decision.
He said, “This institution (the Supreme Court) has been created; power, constrained and enabled by the Constitution; therefore, nothing can go beyond the Constitution.”
Justice Isa, citing Article 191 of Constitution, said the Supreme Court made rules according to the Constitution to regulate its practice and the procedure, adding, “the apex court, in fact, is subject to the Constitution.”
Justice Umar Ata Bandial stated: “This is a policy matter, and not a 10-member bench but the full court can decide about it.”
The court witnessed an unpleasant situation when Justice Muneeb Akhtar who remarked that Article 191 does not say that the rules can be altered, was interrupted by Justice Isa.
Upon that Justice Muneeb told Justice Isa: “Wait and don’t interrupt me, first you have to hear me, that is the procedure.”
Justice Isa responded: “My lord [is] asking the question or [have] determined it.”
“Don’t become argumentative. We have given you full respect,” Justice Muneeb told Justice Isa.
Justice Isa argued that he had arrayed the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) as a respondent in his review petition.
“I have levelled serious allegations against the SJC. Chief Justice of Pakistan is chairman of the SJC and Convenor of the SC Full Court meeting,” he added.
Justice Muneeb asked the judge: “Are you assuming if the matter goes to the Full Court meeting then you will be excluded?”
Justice Isa replied: “My lord has misunderstood my submission.”
Upon that, Justice Muneeb said: “I have understood differently.”
The case was adjourned until March 8th.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2021
Comments
Comments are closed.