ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday sought legal assistance and recommendations from the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) as it heard petitions asking for a probe into the video controversy involving Accountability Court Judge Arshad Malik.

A three-member SC bench headed by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and comprising Justice Sheikh Azmat Saaed and Justice Umar Ata Bandial took up three pleas for a thorough probe into the video scandal.

During the course of proceedings, the chief justice asked the deputy attorney general about the AGP.

The deputy attorney general said the AGP was in The Hague.

The chief justice remarked that it meant that the AGP was there (The Hague) to hear the verdict about Indian spy Kalbushan Jadhav.

He observed that the court had already heard the petitioners and it would decide the matter after receiving recommendations from the AGP.   The chief justice remarked that objections were raised when the Supreme Court took action on any matter, and if otherwise, it was asked to take notice.

The court would decide whether to step in. "We need to look into the judge's conduct. We also need to see whether we can interfere."

The court would soon decide a few things, he added.

Advocate Munir Sadiq ,counsel for the petitioner Ishtiaq Ahmed Mirza, said the video scandal had raised questions about the judiciary. Maryam Nawaz, in her press conference on July 6, had alleged that the accountability court judge was working under pressure. He said the matter was sensitive as it pertained to the independence and prestige of the judiciary.

It should be investigated to determine the responsible, he added.

The counsel said all the political parties, including Pakistan Peoples Party and Jamaat-i-Islami, and lawyers had also demanded an investigation into the scandal.

Prime Minister Imran Khan had also said that the judiciary should take notice of the matter, he added.

It was observed that the courts were independent if they conceded to the people's demands, the chief justice remarked.

The lawyer requested the court to form a commission, comprising even a one man, to look into the matter.

The chief justice asked the counsel as to who should head the commission. The lawyer replied, "A judge."

The chief justice remarked that such a culture had developed that if someone did a bad thing then all were thought to be bad, such as judges, politicians etc.

He questioned what the commission would look into.

Lawyer Munir Sadiq replied that the commission should find out the truth.

If the allegations were proved, then the contempt of court proceedings should be initiated.

Mohammad Ikram Chaudhry, counsel for the second petitioner Advocate Sohail Akhtar, also argued that a commission should be formed to look for the truth and if the contempt of court had taken place, action should be taken against those found responsible.

The chief justice remarked that the search for truth had been going on since the beginning of the human race. Any order by the apex court could restrict the high court.

How the high court would take any action in that case, he asked.

Ikram Chaudhry said the apex court's decision would be based on the findings of commission.

The chief justice responded that he was steering the counsel in that direction as no court could take notice on the commission's findings.       The lawyer said the statements of Judge Arshad Malik should be looked into minutely.

The chief justice observed that there was no doubt that the judge's statements were extraordinary.

Advocate Ikram Chaudhry said if statements regarding the judiciary continued, there would be pressure on the high court to make a decision.

The chief justice remarked that a lawyer had attacked a judge with a chair and that was also extraordinary.

Whether it was also not extraordinary that a judge had hit a lawyer with a paper weight, he asked.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked that the first thing was that the matter pertained to the institution of judiciary, which would look into the judge's conduct.

New information regarding the matter was surfacing daily and the dust should now settle down.

The court wanted such suggestions so that it could take a decision not based on emotions, he remarked.   Ikram Chaudhry requested the court to initiate contempt of court proceedings against those involved in the scandal.

Upon this, the chief justice asked as to who would look into the allegations against Judge Arshad Malik. Whether the judge himself would look into the allegations, he added.

Ikram Chaudhry said the judiciary was being mocked because of the statements and the counter statements issued on the matter.

The chief justice remarked that it was why the court was hearing the case.

Ikram Chaudhry said the matter should be investigated under criminal and cyber crime laws.

The chief justice asked whether all the cases registered in the country had been probed on the Supreme Court's orders.

The third petitioner Advocate Tariq Asad, who personally pleaded his case, said a forensic audit of the video should be conducted.

He alleged that sometimes the judge was visiting Jati Umra and sometimes he was meeting people (in Saudi Arabia) while performing Umrah.

He said it was a case pertaining to the judiciary's autonomy as some other institutions were allegedly interfering in its affairs.

The chief justice remarked that the counsel on one hand was speaking about interference in the affairs of judiciary and on the other demanding that the institutions should interfere.

Tariq Asad said the institutions were interfering but they were not doing their job.

He alleged that it was clear from the conduct of Judge Arshad Malik that he had been involved in corrupt practices.

He said he had to leave the room because of the discussion on television talk shows.

The chief justice asked the counsel to better switch off the television instead of leaving the room.

Advocate Tariq Asad also requested for constitution of a one-member inquiry commission.

The government, he added, also had powers to form such a commission, however, it should be formed by the judiciary.

The chief justice remarked that Judge Arshad Malik was a subordinate judge of the Lahore High Court and he was appointed as the accountability court judge by the government on deputation.

He remarked that the judiciary was concerned about the video's authenticity, while the rest were public matters.

The chief justice remarked that they should also look at how a private video of an individual was recorded and how it was made public. He observed that it was an issue of the judiciary's integrity as the meetings held by the judge were unusual and extraordinary.   He also wondered as to why the judge had met those people, who were connected to individuals he had convicted.

Justice Bandial observed three issues needed to be taken into consideration: the sanctity of the institution, the correctness of the judgment, and any misconduct by the judge under scrutiny.

He remarked that there was a competent court to decide on the correctness of his judgment while there were laws for initiating proceedings against the judge for any misconduct if needed.

The chief justice observed that that the issue of judge Arshad Malik would be heard by the court, however, the dust must now settle down. “Whatever the court has to do, it will do by itself and not on anyone’s demands. The judicial system does not run on anyone’s behest. The search for truth has been a universal motive even before the arrival of man on earth,” he added.

The case was adjourned till July 23.

 

Copyright APP (Associated Press of Pakistan), 2019

Comments

Comments are closed.