Can the CJP turn back the clock to before May 9?
Discord among the highest court’s judges makes things difficult for the chief justice.
ISLAMABAD: CJP Umar Ata Bandial’s comments this week indicate that he is attempting to return the country to the time before May 9, when Imran Khan, chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), was not arrested and the political landscape was very different.
However, a statement released after the Formation Commanders Conference at the General Headquarters (GHQ) sent a clear message from military leadership. According to a high-ranking government source, it will be difficult to return the situation to as it was before May 9.
The declaration made by military leaders on June 7 is also a message to the court, according to a lawyer from the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party.
The violence on May 9 put everyone on the defensive, including the judges who had worked so hard to hold the Punjab Assembly elections on May 14.
Later on, they were compelled to exercise restraint in cases that threatened to pit the court against parliament, the executive branch, and the security apparatus.
Now, we’re hearing that CJP Bandial has listed petitions against Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s inquiry committee, which the federal government established last month to look into a leaked audio recording that allegedly includes the voices of current and past judicial officials, as well as members of their families.
CJP Bandial questioned who leaked the audio snippets to social media and why the government had not taken action against those responsible during the June 7 hearing of the audio leaks commission case.
Abid Zuberi’s attorney, Shoaib Shaheen, alleged that the recordings surfaced after a Supreme Court bench on February 16 asked the CJP to use his suo motu power to address the delay in holding elections for the Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa assemblies.
The attorney had gone so far as to condemn the “role” of state entities in “releasing” the recordings onto social media. The judges, surprisingly, had said nothing in response to his claims.
A judgment on the government’s request for the recusal of three judges, including the CJP, from the bench hearing the audio leaks commission case due to “conflict of interest” was reserved.
Since the CJP’s office was not consulted over nominations of judges for the inquiry commission, he deemed this matter to be about judicial independence, a violation of the trichotomy of authority.
In response to the Supreme Court’s (SC) April 4 ruling to hold polls in Punjab on May 14, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) filed a review appeal this week.
The Chief Justice’s comments in the ECP case may also have angered the federal administration. The court is anxious to make a ruling on the ECP’s request for a rehearing.
The same bench has also heard challenges to a bill that expands the grounds for review of decisions made under Article 1843 of the Constitution.
The bench is hesitant to back this statute in the same way it did the others.
An attorney’s standard position is that the higher judiciary, by exercising its jurisdiction, must demonstrate its superiority over parliament.
The higher courts won’t even let legislators limit their power. The CJP seemed troubled by the protest by parties affiliated with the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) outside the SC building.
The question of whether or not the CJP can force the administration to schedule the elections for all assemblies before his retirement has sparked heated debate.
One branch of the judiciary’s attempts to schedule the general elections before September have been wasted, in the opinion of some attorneys, because of the PTI chief’s arrogance. By declining to meet with a PDM committee tasked with reaching a compromise about the dissolution of the assembly, Imran Khan squandered a golden opportunity.
The same branch of the judiciary is currently experiencing numerous difficulties. To begin, these judges have angered the powerful due to their rulings in electoral concerns.
Second, there are competing ideologies inside the highest court. The Supreme Court judges have a major distrust problem.Chief Justice Bandial continues to place “like-minded” judges on panels considering controversial issues.
In light of the current situation, the CJP has the complete support of the leadership of the Professional Lawyers Group.
