The Supreme Court (SC) adjourned on Wednesday the suo motu hearing on a letter of Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges of interference and intimidation by the operatives of intelligence agencies in judicial working.
The hearing was adjourned till April 29, with CJP hinting constitution of the full court.
A seven-member bench headed by Chief Justice (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Mussarat Hilali, and Naeem Akhtar Afghan took up the hearing.
During today’s hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan appeared before the SC.
Last week, six judges of the IHC wrote a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against the alleged “interference” and “intimidation” by the “operatives of intelligence agencies.”
These IHC’s judges were Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz.
Later, Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar said that the government would place the letter before the federal cabinet for the formation of an inquiry commission.
“The prime minister will request a neutral, non-partisan and retired judge to head an inquiry commission and submit a report after investigating in accordance with the law,” Tarar said.
In a meeting between PM Shehbaz Sharif and Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, on May 28, a proposal was made to constitute an Inquiry Commission under the Pakistan Commissions of Inquiry Act, 2017, which should be headed by a retired judge of impeccable integrity to inquire into the matter.
On March 30, the federal cabinet appointed former chief justice of Pakistan Justice (retired) Tassaduq Hussain Jillani to head a commission to probe allegations of the IHC judges.
Moreover, more than 300 members of the legal fraternity from across the country joined hands and put their weight behind the six judges of the IHC and called upon the Supreme Court to take cognisance of the alleged meddling into judiciary’s affairs by the state’s intelligence agencies under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, and rejecting the related inquiry panel formed by the federal government.
Comments