Judicial schism: Have the majority of senior SC judges swapped sides?
There is widespread skepticism that anything has been done to improve the credibility of Supreme Court justices.
ISLAMABAD:
Pakistan’s top judge, Umar Ata Bandial, has expressed dismay at reports of external attempts to sow discord inside the country’s judicial system. However, nothing little has been done to improve the Supreme Court’s distrustful culture.
Since February, when the court asserted its suo motu authority and took notice of the delay in announcing polls in two provinces, internal disagreements have grown wider on the composition of benches, the listing of cases, and the nomination of superior courts judges.
However, the supreme court began to show signs of weakness when a full court heard Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s appeal against the presidential reference that sought his removal on grounds that he had hidden the overseas assets of his family members.
So far, CJP Bandial has not been successful in dispelling the widespread belief that he exclusively seats “like-minded” judges on benches tasked with deciding contentious political issues. In the establishment of benches hearing sensitive issues, the two senior-most SC justices, including Justice Isa, have been routinely disregarded.
Some attorneys argue that Justice Isa should wait until he is raised as CJP in September this year before taking action to improve public access to information about judicial appointments, bench makeup, and case scheduling.
All matters filed under Article 184 (3) were put on hold by Justice Isa’s March 30 court decision until the SC regulations regarding the creation of special benches could be updated. This judicial ruling was, however, disregarded by CJP Bandial via a communication from the SC registrar.
After that, Justice Isa had requested that the government bring the registrar’s office back home. Justice Isa’s ruling was overturned by a bigger bench of six judges that was created by CJP Bandial.
To examine the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, CJP Bandial later convened a bigger bench of eight judges.
The statute that intended to limit the CJP’s discretionary authority over the make-up of benches and the scheduling of cases was put on hold when the CJP appointed justices who shared his views to the bench.
Justice Isa has been performing just chamber work since the SC Practice and Procedure Act 2023 was passed. When CJP Bandial inquired about Justice Isa’s availability for a bench, Isa responded with an explanation for his absence from the bench.
The federal government took advantage of this discord by forming an inquiry commission under the Inquiry Commission Act 2017 with Justice Isa at its helm to investigate the validity of audios involving current and former judges and their families.
Without informing CJP Bandial, the administration added two more high court justices to the commission. The Chief Justice is often consulted during commission formation, but this is not mandated by law.
The “very constitution of the commission is cast into doubt,” as CJP Bandial put it, and the lawyers of the Professional Lawyers Group agree.
However, the Independent Group is supporting the administration. The Independent Group, which holds a majority on the Pakistan Bar Council, has called for an emergency meeting of the council’s executive committee.
On Friday, CJP Bandial stated that the appointment of judges without his approval violates the trichotomy of authority and compromises judicial independence.
Along with halting the investigation commission’s activities, the five-judge panel he was headed announced that investigating the audio leaks will take precedence.
Justice Isa, on Saturday, raised more than a dozen objections regarding the bigger bench’s ruling, which caused the inquiry commission to postpone its hearings.
The bigger bench of the Supreme Court has sent out notifications to all respondents via the secretary of the Inquiry Commission. The commission is likely to respond in writing shortly.
The entire world is hanging on the commission’s decision.
Some attorneys point out that the two most senior SC judges have shifted places.
Focusing on the Isa family’s overseas holdings was a top priority for CJP Bandial in the Justice Isa case. As the panel chairman, Justice Isa has now demanded that the truth regarding the leaks be made public.
CJP Bandial now worries that the appointment of judges to the investigation body may compromise judicial impartiality. It was first thought that the reference against Justice Isa was an attempt to undermine judicial impartiality.
Justices Bandial and Munib Akhtar have now relayed the view of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah in the Justice Isa case, in which he emphasized the significance of privacy under Article 14. Justice Isa has recently said that individual privacy is not guaranteed.
PDM-led administration is antagonistic to CJP Bandial at this time. The PTI-led government had previously run ads criticizing Justice Isa. Roles are reversed from the original situation.
The two justices agree that the court system can only enforce its rulings morally. Even if one faction of Supreme Court justices manages to defeat the other in this conflict, the Court as a whole stands to lose its moral authority and credibility as a result.
