ISLAMABAD, May 07 (APP):The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of in suo motu notice case on letter of six judges of Islamabad High Court (IHC) for indefinite time.
A six-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, and comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan heard the case.
During the course of proceedings, the chief justice remarked that pressure could be exerted in every way and they were focusing on that. “It has also become a big pressure that we are relentless,” he added.
He said that some people had taken over the social media and “live court proceedings are our reaction to see for yourselves how the court proceedings are conducted”.
Referring to Article 209 of the Constitution, the CJP said the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) should not be burdened as it was not its responsibility.
Addressing the Islamabad Bar Association’s (IBA) lawyer, the CJP said that the SJC could change the code of conduct. “You should write a good letter to the Council, if they deemed it appropriate they may accept it.”
The IBA’s lawyer Ahmed Hassan Shah said that the responsibility would not be determined without investigation into the matter.
Even for the judges, the method and the law would be the same, he said.
The Supreme Court Bar Association, in its comments submitted to the SC, said it would never compromise on the independence of the judiciary, calling for investigations against those who interfered.
It further said that there was a complete code of conduct regarding the responsibilities and protection of judges.
The SCBA said the IHC had the power of contempt of court proceedings and it should have utilized it. It was beyond understanding that why the high court did not initiate the contempt of court proceedings.
During the hearing, the Karachi Bar Association also submitted its proposals in the case. It said that judges should be bound to inform the competent authority within seven days of any attempt of interference, and the authorities should be bound to ensure the protection of judges.
It said that if anyone gave a false statement then action should be taken against him. The Supreme Court and high courts should set up a special cell for such report.
Later, the case was adjourned.
