Newspaper Articles

Pakistan is heading towards judicial dictatorship – Asma Jahangir

Asma says judicial dictatorship on the cards

KARACHI: People will soon witness a judicial dictatorship in the country if the judiciary continuously moves ahead in its present direction and then we would forget military and political dictatorships, HRCP chairperson Asma Jahangir said on Wednesday.

While speaking at the Karachi Press Club, she said, “People want an impartial judiciary, and it is their right.” She said the HRCP was preparing a charter about judges’ appointments that would comprise requirements such as practice period of the person, and their proceedings of human rights’ cases and about other public interest matters. “We would not like pro-establishment judges.”

Referring to a meeting between Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, she said the HRCP would not accept any give-and-take as an outcome of the meeting.

To a query, she said neither the parliament nor the judiciary were supreme; only the people are supreme because both the institutions have to serve the masses.

She criticised a section of the media and said civil society had always supported freedom of the media, but suppressing any voice in the opposition would go against the rights of the freedom of expression.

The HRCP demanded the government to make public the details of detained or arrested militants during the military operation in Malakand and Swat. The HRCP chairperson said hundreds of women and children of the militants had also been detained.

Source

’عدالتی آمریت کی طرف بڑھ رہے ہیں‘
ریاض سہیل
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، کراچی

پاکستان میں انسانی حقوق کمیشن کی سربراہ عاصمہ جہانگیر نے کہا ہے کہ وہ ملک میں عدلیہ کی آمریت آتے دیکھ رہی ہیں جسے کے بعد لوگ سیاسی آمریت بھی بھول جائیں گے۔

انہوں نے اعلان کیا کہ انسانی حقوق کا کمیشن آئین میں اصلاحات کے لیے ایک چارٹر تیار کر رہا ہے جس میں یہ مطالبہ کیا جائے گا کہ اعلیٰ عدالتوں میں جج بننے والوں کے بارے میں عوام کو ان کی پروفیشنل زندگی کے بارے میں آگاہ ہونا چاہیئے اور اس چارٹر پر وہ عوام کی رائے لینے کے لیے مہم چلائیں گے۔

عاصمہ جہانگیر کا کہنا تھا ’میں نے عدالتی آمریت دیکھی ہے ہم اس طرف جا رہے ہیں وہ ایسا سخت وقت ہوگا کہ عوام سیاسی آمریت کو بھول جائیں گے یہ رویہ رکھنا کہ ہمارے منہ سے جو بھی لفظ نکلے اور اسے فوری پورا کیا جائے ورنہ کالے کوٹ والے آپ کو ٹھیک کردیں گے یہ ایک آزاد اور غیر جانبدار عدلیہ کو زیب نہیں دیتا‘۔

کراچی پریس کلب میں بدھ کے روز میڈیا سے بات کرتے ہوئے عدلیہ اور حکومت میں جاری کشیدگی کے بارے میں عاصمہ جہانگیر نے سخت موقف کا اظہار کیا۔ جس وقت وہ میڈیا سے مخاطب تھیں اس وقت وزیراعظم یوسف رضا گیلانی سے سپریم کورٹ کے چیف جسٹس افتخار محمد چودھری کی ملاقات جاری تھی۔

عاصمہ جہانگیر کا کہنا تھا کہ وہ سمجھتی ہیں کہ لوگ سپریم ہیں، پارلمنٹ اور عدلیہ لوگوں کی بنائی ہوئی ہیں، انہوں نے کہا کہ خود عدلیہ کی پالیسی میں بھی یہ ہی لکھا ہے کہ عدلیہ کو انتظامیہ سے فاصلہ رکھنا چاہیئے ۔

وزیراعظم اور چیف جسٹس کی ملاقات کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے انہوں نے کہا کہ ملاقات بھی دیکھیں گے ان کی حرکات و سکنات بھی دیکھیں گے،اس سے پہلے ملاقاتیں تو نواز شریف اور آصف علی زرداری کی بھی بہت ہوئیں تھیں۔

ججوں کی معزولی کے وقت سرگرم اور بحالی کے بعد ان ہی ججوں سے مایوس عاصمہ جہانگیر کا کہنا ہے کہ معاملہ حل ہو بھی گیا تو یہ مستقل حل نہیں ۔

میں نے عدالتی آمریت دیکھی ہے ہم اس طرف جا رہے ہیں وہ ایسا سخت وقت ہوگا کہ عوام سیاسی آمریت کو بھول جائیں گے یہ رویہ رکھنا کہ ہمارے منہ سے جو بھی لفظ نکلے اور اسے فوری پورا کیا جائے ورنہ کالے کوٹ والے آپ کو ٹھیک کردیں گے یہ ایک آزاد اور غیر جانبدار عدلیہ کو زیب نہیں دیتا۔

انھوں نے کہا’ ہم آئینی اصلاحات کے حق میں ہیں اگر سرکار اور چیف جسٹس کا آج مک مکا ( فریقوں کے درمیان سودے بازی) ہوگیا تو یہ عوام کا مک مکا نہیں ہے، عوام کے لیے یہ ضروری ہے کہ آئینی اصلاحات ہوں وہ یہ دیکھیں کہ اعلیٰ عدالت کے ججوں کی تعیناتی کا طریقہ کار کیا ہے‘ ۔

عاصمہ نے کہا یہ کہا جاتا ہے کہ اے کو نہیں بی کو جج لگایا جائے مگر یہ اختیار تو عوام کو ہونا چاہیئے جو انصاف کے لیے پریشان ہیں۔ ان کے مطابق انسانی حقوق کمیشن ایک چارٹر بنا رہا ہے جس پر لوگوں کے دستخط لیے جائیں گے اور ان کی رائے کو شامل کیا جائے گا ۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ سپریم یا ہائی کورٹ میں کسی بھی جج کی جب تقرری ہو تو ایک شہری کو یہ پتہ ہونا چاہیئے کہ اس نے کتنے اور کس نوعیت کے مقدمات کی پیروی کی اور کتنا ٹیکس ادا کیا ۔

عاصمہ جہانگیر کا کہنا تھا کہ آئندہ جج بننے والوں کے ماضی سے بھی عوام کو آگاہ کیا جانا چاہیئے۔ اگر سارے جج وہ ہیں جو اسٹیبلشمنٹ کا ذہن رکھتے ہیں یا سارے جج پراسیکیوٹر برانچ سے آئے ہیں یا بڑی بڑی صنعتوں کی نمائندگی کرتے ہیں تو یہ ایک ایلیٹ عدلیہ ہوگی۔ ان کے مطابق یہ دیکھنے کی ضرورت ہے کہ آنے والے جج نے لیبر یونین کے کتنے مقدمات کی پیروی کی، خواتین، بچوں اور اقلیتوں کے مقدمات کی کبھی پیروی کی ہے یا نہیں کیونکہ جب کوئی جج بنتا ہے تو اس کے لیے سب برابر ہوتے ہیں۔

ایک سوال کے جواب میں انسانی حقوق کمیشن کی سربراہ عاصمہ جہانگیر کا کہنا تھا کہ حکومت کی تبدیلی کے بعد اگر کوئی یہ سمجھتا ہے کہ اختیارات کی منتقلی ہوگئی ہے تو یہ اس کی خوش فہمی ہے، ان کے مطابق فوجی آمریت اب کھلے عام سامنے نہیں آئیگی کیونکہ اس نے لوگوں کا غصہ دیکھ لیا ہے۔

Source: BBC Urdu.com

جسٹس ناصر زاہد اسلم

سندھ ہائی کورٹ کے ایک سابق چیف جسٹس ریٹائرڈ جسٹس ناصر زاہد اسلم نے پاکستان کے وزیر اعظم اور چیف جسٹس پاکستان کے درمیان ملاقات اور عدالتی معاملات بحسن و خوبی طے ہونے کو تو خوش آئند قرار دیا تاہم انھوں نے موجودہ حالات پر افسوس ظاہر کرتے ہوئے کہا معاملات کو اس نہج پر آنا ہی نہیں چاہیے تھے۔ بلکہ مشاورت کے ذر یعے پہلے ہی طے ہوجانے چاہیے تھے۔

جسٹس ناصر زاہد اسلم نے کہا کہ اسی طرح کے تنازعات ماضی میں بھی اٹھتے رہے ہیں جن سے بچنے کے لئے دونوں بڑی جماعتوں نے میثاق جمہوریت نامی ایک دستاویز میں ججوں کی تعیناتی کا طریقہ کار طے کیا تھا۔

انہوں کہا کہ اس طریقہ کار پر عملدرآمد کے لیے پالیمان کو آئین میں جلد از جلد آرٹیکل 177 میں ترمیم کر کے جوڈیشیل کمیشن تشکیل دینا چاہیے۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ جب تک ایسا نہیں کیا جائیگا اس وقت تک عدالت عالیہ کو مقننہ پر برتری حاصل رہیگی۔

واضح رہے کہ چارٹر آف ڈیموکریسی یعنی میثاق جمہوریت پر پاکستان پیپلز پارٹی کی چییر پرسن بے نظیر بھٹو اور پاکستان مسلم لیگ نواز کے سربراہ میاں نواز شریف نے 2006 میں لندن میں دستخط کیے تھے۔ یہ دستاویز دونوں جلا وطن سابق وزرائے اعظموں کے ماضی کے تلخ تجربات کی پس منظر میں کئی برسوں کے رابطوں اور صلاح مشوروں کا نتیجہ تھا۔

دستاویز کے مطابق ایک عدالتی کمیشن عدالت عالیہ کے ججوں کی تقرری سفارشات کرے گا۔ جبکہ حتمی منظوری عدلیہ کے لیے بنائی گئی سو ارکان پر مشتمل ایک پالیمانی کمیٹی دیگی۔ جس میں سرکاری بینچوں اور حزب اختلا ف کی مساوی نمائیندگی ہوگی۔

Source: BBC Urdu.com

About the author

SK

14 Comments

Click here to post a comment
  • Lawyers and Civil Society 🙂 think that after March 9, 2007, they have brought in French Revolution but they are wrong whole Movement was started and manipulated to Finger Musharraf and ease out army from the mess the army itself created. History is as under: [Asma Jahangir was part of that Restoration Movement as well]

    The detailed verdict of NRO carried references from Ghazali and Rumi, these Judges should have read the life history of Imam Malik and Imam Abu Haneefa [May Allah have mercy on their souls] because they never issued Fatwa in favour of Rulers and preferred to be flogged and imprisonment [Imam Malik was beaten so mercilessly that one of his arm was broken but he never budged]
    I just want to ask that where was the Integrity when Judges were allowing/legalizing Martial Law in 2000 and then again 2005 and in 2010 those very Judges are talking about Sadiq and Ameen???? Why didn’t they resigned en masse when Musharraf elevated them from High Courts to Supreme Court to legalize Martial Law.
    “judge not lest ye be judged”
    When Musharraf and Generals enforced Martial Law on 12 Oct 1999 they created a department called National Accountability Bureau and one of the most important prosecutor [a lady lawyer] was appointed on a key post in NAB. Guess what! Before Martial Law she was defending one of the accused under arrest since 1996 [when the second government of PPP was dismissed] and after 12 Oct 1999 the same Prosecutor was leading NAB against the same. I wont any name but many leading Lawyers of Free Judiciary Movement [not the Lahore wala] were very close to her. Not only that Former CJ SC Mr Saeeduz Zaman was also very “close” to her.
    This is the reality of “Accountability Bureau of Musharraf, Ehtisab Bureau of Nawaz Sharif, Ehtisab Commission of Leghari and Justice [R] Ghulam Mujjaddid Mirza and Corruption References filed by Ghulam Ishaq Khan [he within two years accepted Zardari as Caretaker Fed. Minister (message was delivered by Roedad Khan – the Anti NRO Chap) after filing the reference against him], GIK and his Roedad Khan saw to it [between 1990 – 1993] that Cases against BB/AAZ are handled properly and they get bail regularly [what was the purpose to file reference when you have accepted AAZ as Minister]
    Writing of history or triumph of amnesia? Friday, August 07, 2009 By Ayaz Amir http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=191800
    That was the mother of all sins. So how strange and dripping with irony this omission: about that seminal event, which set in train all the sorrows the nation was to reap thereafter, their lordships in their “historic” judgment have nothing to say. For this of course we must understand the problems of the past. For in 2000, a few months after the mother of all sins, when this matter came before the then Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, the nation witnessed another of those electrifying performances which have made “the doctrine of necessity” so famous in our land, the Supreme Court validating Musharraf’s coup and, what’s more, allowing him a grace period of three years to hold elections. In its generosity, it also gave Musharraf the authority to amend the Constitution for purposes of holding elections.
    So just as the Anwarul Haq Supreme Court gave a clean chit to General Ziaul Haq’s coup of 1977, another Supreme Court signed a papal bull conferring legitimacy on another illegitimate offspring of our political adventures. Now for an inconvenient fact. On the bench headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan there sat an up-and-coming jurist, stern of eye and distinguished of look, by the name of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Yes, he was among the illustrious upholders of the law and the Constitution who bathed Musharraf and his generals in holy water.
    The road to hell — and similar destinations Islamabad diary Friday, January 01, 2010 Ayaz Amir http://thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=216323
    Talking of Musharraf’s military rule, what was the role of our present lordships when Triple One Brigade, our highest constitutional authority, reinterpreted the Constitution once again on the long afternoon of Oct 12, 1999? A few judges — Chief Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui comes to mind — did not take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) issued two months later. But if imperfect memory serves, all of their present lordships, at one time or the other, took oath under the PCO. Not only that, some of them were on the bench which validated Musharraf’s takeover. A few, including My Lord the Chief Justice, were on the bench which validated Musharraf’s takeover for the second time in the Zafar Ali Shah case (2005). Of course, we must let bygones be bygones and deal with the present. But then this principle should be for everyone. We should not be raising monuments to selective memory or selective condemnation. If the PCO of 2007 was such a bad idea, in what category should we place the PCO of 2000? And if in this Turkish bath all are like the emperor without his clothes, the least this should inculcate is a sense of humility.
    Do keep in mind that Hafeez Pirzada who was opposing the NRO was one of the leading attorney in Zardari Cases. If you would go through the details of Cases and Parties these Lawyers [who run Judiciary Movement] have handled you would be amazed. Akram Sheikh daily appear on GEO TV for the sake of Judiciary and Rule of Law whereas he was General Aslam Beg’s Lawyer in Mehran Bank Scandal Case [case is pending since 1996], Hafeez Pirzada was one of the beneficiary of Mehran Bank [The recipients included Khar two million, Hafeez Pirzada three million We never learn from history – 7 By Ardeshir Cowasjee August 12, 2007 Dawn]
    At the over three-hour-long dinner meeting, the 35 senior lawyers, including four former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Aitzaz Ahsan, Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood, Ali Ahmed Kurd and Muneer A. Malik, were unanimous in their view that Barrister Ahsan still held sole authority to issue any protest calls or set any line of action, one of the participants told Dawn on condition of anonymity. Senior lawyers back Aitzaz Ahsan By Nasir Iqbal Thursday, 04 Feb, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/16-senior-lawyers-back-aitzaz-hs-07
    Lawyers divided over strike call By Nasir Iqbal Tuesday, 26 Jan, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/12-lawyers-divided-over-strike-call-710–bi-11
    Earlier it was revealed that SCBA’s Qazi Anwar was sentenced nine months in jail for possessing explosives in 1979, adding Lahore High Court curtailed his punishment; however, his charge was kept unchanged. BC approached for Qazi Anwar’s ineligibility Updated at: 1445 PST, Monday, February 01, 2010 http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=97613
    Latest is as under: Monday, February 08, 2010, Safar 23, 1431 A.H http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/feb2010-daily/08-02-2010/u20419.htm
    ’عدلیہ کی آزادی کے باوجود کچھ نہیں بدلا‘
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2009/09/090907_kurd_hit_judiciary_rr.shtml
    Monday, 7 September, 2009, 12:58 GMT 17:58 PST
    عدلیہ انتظامیہ جھگڑے میں نیا موڑ
    رفاقت علی
    بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، لندن
    آخری وقت اشاعت: اتوار, 14 فروری, 2010, 22:17 GMT 03:17 PST
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/02/100213_judiciary_executive.shtml
    سپریم کورٹ نے خود کئی بار ججز کیس کی دھجیاں بکھیریں اور ایک بار
    تو لاہور ہائی کے ایک ایسے جج کو سپریم کورٹ میں تعینات کر دیا جن کا ہائی کورٹ میں ججوں کی سینارٹی لسٹ پر سولہواں نمبر تھا۔ جب سپریم کورٹ میں ججز کیسز کی واضح خلاف ورزی کو چیلنج کیا گیا تو سپریم کورٹ نے حکم صادر کیا کہ وہ کسی جج کو سپریم کورٹ کا جج بنا سکتی ہے۔ ججوں کی تعیناتی کے سلسلے میں سپریم کورٹ نے اپنی ضرورت کےمطابق کئی متضاد فیصلے صارد کر رکھے ہیں اور شاید موجودہ سپریم کورٹ کو بھی ’پی سی او سپریم کورٹ‘ کےایک فیصلے کا بھی سہارا لینا پڑے گا جس کے تحت صدر کے اس اختیار کو مانا گیا تھا کہ وہ ہائی کورٹ کے سینئر جج کو سپریم کورٹ میں تعینات کر سکتا ہے۔
    چیف جسٹس آف پاکستان جسٹس افتخار محمد چودھری جسٹس خواجہ شریف کو لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا چیف جسٹس رکھنے پر کیوں بضد ہیں اس کا کسی کو علم نہیں ہے۔ جسٹس خواجہ شریف کو میاں نواز شریف کے دور حکومت میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا جج مقرر کیا گیا تھا۔
    لاہور ہائی کے سینئر جج جسٹس میاں ثاقب نثار کو بھی نواز شریف دور میں ہائی کورٹ کا جج مقرر کیا گیا۔ جسٹس ثاقب نثار میاں نواز شریف دور کے وزیرِ قانون خالد انور کے جونیئر تھے اور اسی دور حکومت میں انہوں نے سیکرٹری قانون کا قلمدان بھی سنبھالے رکھا
    Crucial History of Appointment of Judges Case is under:
    Appointment of Judges: History 1993 – 1997.
    http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/appointment-of-judges-history-1993-1997.html

    Saqib Nisar and Khalid Anwer [PML-N]
    NRO: Kamran Khan & Dirty Role of Barrister Khalid Anwer. http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/nro-kamran-khan-dirty-role-of-barrister.html
    PAKISTAN: International Commission of Jurists http://www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/pakistan.pdf
    The independence of the judiciary was largely undermined by the order by General Musharraf in January 2000 that Pakistani judges take a fresh oath of loyalty to his administration. In May 2000, the Supreme Court, reconstituted after the dismissal of six judges who refused the oath, upheld General Musharraf’s military coup of 1999, under the doctrine of state necessity. Pakistan is a constitutional republic. On 15 October 1999, the Government promulgated the Provisional Constitution Order, (PCO), No.1 of 1999, overriding the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, previously suspended following the 12 October 1999 military coup led by General Pervez Musharraf. The PCO provided for the suspension of the National Assembly, the Provincial Assemblies and the Senate and mandated General Musharraf to serve as the new Chief Executive.
    On 20 June 2001, General Musharraf became President of Pakistan after dismissing the incumbent President, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar. On 12 May 2000, the Supreme Court validated the October 1999 coup under the doctrine of state necessity. However, the Court ordered that the Government hold national and provincial elections by 12 October 2002. In response, President Musharraf presented a four-phase programme aimed at returning the country to democratic rule, with local elections to be held from December 2000 until August 2001. Subsequently, a series of local elections were held in December 2000, March 2001, May 2001 and July-August 2001. However, political parties were prohibited from participating in the contests and party leaders were disqualified from holding political office.

  • As per International Criminal Court, Judges must follow the following principles while they are Judges:

    Noting the solemn undertaking required by article 45 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (the “Statute”) and rule 5 (1) (a) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (the “Rules”);

    Recalling the principles concerning judicial independence, impartiality and proper conduct specified in the Statute and the Rules;

    Recognising the need for guidelines of general application to contribute to judicial
    independence and impartiality and with a view to ensuring the legitimacy and effectiveness of the international judicial process;

    Having regard to the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary
    (1985) and other international and national rules and standards relating to judicial conduct;

    Mindful of the international character of the Court and the special challenges facing the judges of the Court in the performance of their responsibilities;

    Have agreed as follows:

    Code of Judicial Ethics

    Article 1

    Adoption of the Code

    This Code has been adopted by the judges pursuant to regulation 126 and shall be read subject to the Statute, the Rules and the Regulations of the Court.

    Article 2

    Use of terms

    In this Code of Judicial Ethics the terms “Court”, “Statute”, “Rules” and “Regulations” shall have the meaning attached to them in the Regulations of the Court.

    Article 3

    Judicial independence

    1. Judges shall uphold the independence of their office and the authority of the Court and shall conduct themselves accordingly in carrying out their judicial functions.

    2. Judges shall not engage in any activity which is likely to interfere with their judicial functions or to affect confidence in their independence.

    Article 4

    Impartiality

    1. Judges shall be impartial and ensure the appearance of impartiality in the discharge of their judicial functions.

    2. Judges shall avoid any conflict of interest, or being placed in a situation which might reasonably be perceived as giving rise to a conflict of interest.

    Article 5

    Integrity

    1. Judges shall conduct themselves with probity and integrity in accordance with their office, thereby enhancing public confidence in the judiciary.

    2. Judges shall not directly or indirectly accept any gift, advantage, privilege or reward that can reasonably be perceived as being intended to influence the performance of their judicial functions.

    Article 6

    Confidentiality

    Judges shall respect the confidentiality of consultations which relate to their judicial functions and the secrecy of deliberations.

    Article 7

    Diligence

    1. Judges shall act diligently in the exercise of their duties and shall devote their professional activities to those duties.

    2. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance the knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for judicial office.

    3. Judges shall perform all judicial duties properly and expeditiously.

    4. Judges shall deliver their decisions and any other rulings without undue delay.

    Article 8

    Conduct during proceedings

    1. In conducting judicial proceedings, judges shall maintain order, act in accordance with commonly accepted decorum, remain patient and courteous towards all participants and members of the public present and require them to act likewise.

    2. Judges shall exercise vigilance in controlling the manner of questioning of witnesses or victims in accordance with the Rules and give special attention to the right of participants to the proceedings to equal protection and benefit of the law.

    3. Judges shall avoid conduct or comments which are racist, sexist or otherwise degrading and, to the extent possible, ensure that any person participating in the proceedings refrains from such comments or conduct.

    Article 9

    Public expression and association

    1. Judges shall exercise their freedom of expression and association in a manner that is compatible with their office and that does not affect or appear to affect judicial independence or impartiality.

    2. While judges are free to participate in public debate on matters pertaining to legal subjects, the judiciary or the administration of justice, they shall not comment on pending cases and shall avoid expressing views which may undermine the standing and integrity of the Court.

    Article 10

    Extra-judicial activity

    1. Judges shall not engage in any extra-judicial activity that is incompatible with their judicial function or the efficient and timely functioning of the Court, or that may affect or may reasonably appear to affect their independence or impartiality.

    2. Judges shall not exercise any political function.

    Article 11

    Observance of the Code

    1. The principles embodied in this Code shall serve as guidelines on the essential ethical standards required of judges in the performance of their duties. They are advisory in nature and have the object of assisting judges with respect to ethical and professional issues with which they are confronted.

    2. Nothing in this Code is intended in any way to limit or restrict the judicial independence of the judges.
    ==========================

  • However, the presidency’s inability to win the argument against the judiciary’s interpretation of the basic law does not mean that it has no case. It can be shown that the judiciary’s rigid position on the total extinction of the executive’s role in the process of judges’ selection will not be sustainable in the long run.

    To begin with, the 1996 judgment in the judges case has not been universally accepted as a piece of unblemished wisdom. That it was a reaction to a series of government’s attacks on the globally acknowledged rights of the judiciary is understandable.

    But if the executive’s policy of deciding on judicial appointments without reference to the heads of the judiciary marked one end of the pendulum the 1996 verdict swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Neither position is in accord with the principles of democratic dispensation and the separation of powers.

    Quite a few learned writers on the subject have declared that neither the executive nor the judiciary should have veto powers in the matter of appointment of judges. Indeed the dominant trend is to make key judicial appointments subject to consensus between the ruling party and the opposition.

    An Indian authority has summed up the argument in these words: “Giving finality to the judges is as bad as giving finality to the government. A veto is bad wherever it is vested.

    Therefore, the power to appoint judges must be vested in a body that is independent and represents the government, the opposition as well as the judiciary. This has also been recommended by the (Indian) National Commission to Review the Working of the constitution (NCRWC).”

    Besides, the judiciary itself has not always been able to respect the 1996 judgment. The latest instance of its deviation was the reported move to appoint Justice Khalil Ramday (whose qualifications and outstanding merit cannot be questioned though) as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court soon after his retirement. This was contrary to the 1996 ruling that no ad hoc judge should be appointed to the apex court against a permanent vacancy.

    Sooner or later the 1996 verdict will have to be reviewed with a view to achieving a friction-less balance between the judicial and executive organs of the state with due regard for the majesty of the people’s will.

    All political actors in the field should keep in mind the possibility that they may find themselves, on coming into power, in a predicament similar to President Zardari’s.

    Unfortunately, the debate on the subject has been muddied by two factors. First, the trust deficit between the executive and the judiciary has reached absolute limits.

    It seems neither side is inclined to stop suspecting the motives of the other. In this situation a rational understanding, even of the kind reached between the president and the prime minister in 1989, is apparently impossible. Only time will tell how long and in what form yesterday’s compromise will endure.

    Secondly, it is difficult to dispel the impression that political parties (where they are in power), privileged lawyers’ groups and, if one may be permitted to say, some elements around the judicial establishment, are trying to grab the judiciary’s commanding heights and the reasons are obvious.

    All this does not augur well for the future. The energies of the state’s two vital organs could continue to be dissipated in haggles no democratic polity can afford, and access to justice might become more and more difficult for the poor and the marginalised.

    Have the people of Pakistan forfeited their right to a decent deal from the masters of their destiny?

    Self-defeating exercises
    By I.A. Rehman
    Thursday, 18 Feb, 2010
    http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/12-selfdefeating-exercises-820–bi-04

  • Dawn Editorial

    SC Wins

    The crisis has been defused — at least for now. From what the prime minister has announced it appears the government has essentially capitulated to Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s demands: the Supreme Court will consist of the judges that the chief justice wanted and the Lahore High Court chief justice will stay on in his present job.

    In the circumstances, though, this is perhaps the most sensible course of action. For days, politics was held hostage to the sudden crisis that erupted on Saturday night. Now that it appears to be over, what are the lessons to be learned?

    Start with the presidency. Mr Zardari’s notification late on Saturday evening was ill-advised. It appears to have been issued without the input of the chief justice (a constitutional requirement) and it came only hours after the Supreme Court had constituted a five-member bench to look into precisely the matter at dispute, i.e. who has the ultimate say when it comes to making appointments to and within the superior judiciary.

    The president’s move, then, did not make much practical sense and only served to turbocharge a disagreement that had been simmering for weeks. It was not good politics and it was definitely not good policy.

    Next, the Supreme Court. After President Zardari had made his move, the court acted with remarkable, arguably undue, haste even later on Saturday evening. The court was anyway set to hold its next hearing on the issue at stake on Feb 18. It also had the option of bringing the matter forward to the next normal working hour. Point being, constitutional matters, even where the fault is obvious, should not be decided at late-night meetings — that itself adds to the climate of crisis.

    More generally, the court needs to take more cognisance of the perception that some of its moves may have an element of the personal involved. Even now it is not clear why Justice Ramday absolutely had to be an ad hoc justice of the Supreme Court or why Justice Saqib Nisar is qualified to be elevated to the Supreme Court but not the chief justiceship of the Lahore High Court.

    The opposition must also reassess its response. What began as a highly technical dispute over the interpretation of the law unfortunately ended up as a highly politicised issue. A section of the media, too, played its part to transform the issue in this way. Yes, the president’s move was a bad one but it is not clear it amounted to rejigging the judiciary in the government’s favour. To everyone, then: more calm, please.

    http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/16-sc-wins-hs-01

  • Registrar of the Chief justice conveyed to the MILITARY SECRETARY of Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan that since there were a number of cases against the government pending before the superior court he could not meet with him. AND NOW IN 2010

  • CJ’s meeting with PM against traditions Thursday, February 18, 2010 By Sabir Shah
    http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27324

    LAHORE: The arrival of Premier Yousuf Raza Gilani at Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s dinner hosted for Justice (retd) Khalilur Ramday in Islamabad on Tuesday night may have mellowed down the government-judiciary tiff a bit by spreading smiles all over but it has certainly pained thousands of litigants across the country who have pinned high hopes in an otherwise widely-deemed independent judicial system since March 2007.

    These litigants, many of whom had provided energy to the chief justice by practically expressing solidarity with him on the roads after he was deposed twice by Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf in 2007, today feel that if the prime minister can meet the Supreme Court judges with such ease while he is actually defending the NRO beneficiaries in his cabinet despite explicit Supreme Court orders to treat the allegedly corrupt elements in accordance with the law, then a commoner should also have the right to meet the judges and defend himself or herself in a ‘more congenial’ and ‘more informal’ environment.

    Already disturbed by an unprecedented backlog of cases in courts due to one reason or the other, the premier’s meeting with the chief justice over a sumptuous dinner may have actually rubbed salt in the wounds of waiting litigants.

    While Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in August 2009, had exhorted his country’s judiciary “to wipe every tear of every waiting litigant” by eliminating the scourge of a huge backlog of cases, his Pakistani counterpart is making every effort to prevent his cabinet members from facing the law rather than convincing the country’s president to appoint judges in time to minimise the miseries of waiting litigants.

    Having accorded a warm welcome to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at Tuesday’s dinner, the chief justice has thus disappointed many who have been lauding the brave and revolutionary actions initiated by him to uphold the supremacy of law and relaying the seed of an independent judiciary by swimming against the tide in a country like Pakistan, which has been ruled by military and civil dictators for most part of its history.

    One, however, wonders if the chief justice’s action is in line with the set procedures governing the role, functions and ethics of judges, a subject which is still being widely debated on the planet.

    A peek into the international standards codifying the character of court judges reveals in 1985, the United Nations (UN) had drafted the first universal standards of conduct for the judiciary under the title “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary”.

    Just 15 years later, the UN had established a working party of chief justices from different countries. In 2002, their efforts resulted in guidelines called the “Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct”, named after the location of their first meeting.

    According to the preamble, these principles were intended to establish standards for ethical conduct of judges. This document presented six central ethical values like independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality and competence along with diligence.

    Not fewer than 16 instructions were given under the “propriety” head alone, including whether and to what extent judges may accept gifts, hold public lectures, be a member of a professional association or maintain private contacts.

    In America, the Codes of Conduct were issued at the level of the states back in the early 20th Century, followed by a Federal Judicial Code in 1973, though the Judiciary Act was passed long ago in 1789.

    In Europe, the European Council took on a leadership role and expressed a first recommendation to its member states on the independence, performance and role of judges in 1994.

    Based upon this proposal, the “European Charter on the Statute for Judges” was issued in 1998. This charter contains a catalogue of regulations which aim at ensuring the competence, independence and impartiality that individuals legitimately expect of law courts and judges entrusted with protecting their rights.

    While the Bangalore Principles are now used as a model in many countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia, the European associations of judges have taken a more sceptical view. According to them, the Bangalore Principle, too, widely restricted the judges’ civil rights and, too, strictly regulated their private lives.

    The European judges have also opposed the idea that breaches of ethical rules could possibly be severely punished. There is a cultural-psychological background to such reservations. The Bangalore Principles are strongly inspired by common law thinking in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, even though a considerable number of judges from Continental Europe, the countries of which normally apply civil law, participated in drafting the rules.

    The interest in judicial professional ethics has particularly been aroused in the crisis-prone countries of Latin America, where a true regional code of conduct does not exist yet, but the Statute of Ibero-American Judges of 2001, does at least contain a separate chapter on judicial ethics. Some countries, however, have tackled the issue in concrete terms at the national level. In Mexico, a few years ago, a Federal Code of Judicial Ethics was adopted.

    Prior to this, Costa Rica (2000), Guatemala (2001) and Panama (2002) had introduced similar sets of rules and regulations in Central America. In South America, this applies to Chile (2003), Venezuela (2003) and Peru (2004), as well as various Argentinean provinces. Similar reforms are currently being discussed in Paraguay.

    Jurists and legal experts have widely been deliberating upon the subject today that if any court system becomes farcical once the citizens lose faith in it, despise its judges and resort to other means to enforce their rights.

    They are of the opinion that if judges have lost authority and personal credibility through unethical conduct, they will hardly be able to convince the citizens of the accuracy of any sentences they pass, besides observing in noted law journals that once a judiciary gives itself standards of conduct and makes them available to the public, this generally signifies an important trust-forming measure that spells out in black and white what behaviour citizens may expect of their judges.

    Since the time of US President Thomas Jefferson in 1803, supreme courts the world over have been overturning executive actions deemed unconstitutional by them and have found it difficult to directly enforce their rulings because of their reliance on both executive or legislative branches of the government for this purpose, but neither the US executive nor the judiciary there has ever tried to meet up openly to defuse the resultant tensions.

    One notable instance of Nona quiescence in world court history was witnessed in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the US Supreme Court’s decision in Worcester versus Georgia case, after President Andrew Jackson had sided with the Georgia courts to defy Chief Justice John Marshall’s orders.

    The 1954 judgment regarding desegregation of public schools in Brown versus Board case was also defied in the Southern part of America.

    In more recent history, many had feared that President Richard Nixon would refuse to comply with the court’s order in United States vs Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes, but the US judiciary and executive never met to find a ‘way out’.

    For those who think there is a heavenly judicial system in place in the US, they should know that American Supreme Court is not immune from political and institutional restraints as lower federal courts and state courts sometimes resist doctrinal innovations, as do the law-enforcement officials.

    In addition, there are other mechanisms by which the executive and legislative branches can restrain the US Supreme Court orders. The Congress could increase the number of justices, giving the president power to influence future decisions via appointments (as in Roosevelt’s Court Packing Plan discussed above) and can also pass a legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain cases.

  • Having accorded a warm welcome to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at Tuesday’s dinner, the chief justice has thus disappointed many who have been lauding the brave and revolutionary actions initiated by him to uphold the supremacy of law and relaying the seed of an independent judiciary by swimming against the tide in a country like Pakistan, which has been ruled by military and civil dictators for most part of its history. One, however, wonders if the chief justice’s action is in line with the set procedures governing the role, functions and ethics of judges, a subject which is still being widely debated on the planet. CJ’s meeting with PM against traditions Thursday, February 18, 2010 By Sabir Shah http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27324

    Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary
    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/indjudiciary.htm

    Adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985

    Whereas in the Charter of the United Nations the peoples of the world affirm, inter alia , their determination to establish conditions under which justice can be maintained to achieve international co-operation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination,

    Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines in particular the principles of equality before the law, of the presumption of innocence and of the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law,

    Whereas the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights both guarantee the exercise of those rights, and in addition, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further guarantees the right to be tried without undue delay,

    Whereas frequently there still exists a gap between the vision underlying those principles and the actual situation,

    Whereas the organization and administration of justice in every country should be inspired by those principles, and efforts should be undertaken to translate them fully into reality,
    Whereas rules concerning the exercise of judicial office should aim at enabling judges to act in accordance with those principles,

    Whereas judges are charged with the ultimate decision over life, freedoms, rights, duties and property of citizens,

    Whereas the Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, by its resolution 16, called upon the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control to include among its priorities the elaboration of guidelines relating to the independence of judges and the selection, professional training and status of judges and prosecutors,

    Whereas it is, therefore, appropriate that consideration be first given to the role of judges in relation to the system of justice and to the importance of their selection, training and conduct,

    The following basic principles, formulated to assist Member States in their task of securing and promoting the independence of the judiciary should be taken into account and respected by Governments within the framework of their national legislation and practice and be brought to the attention of judges, lawyers, members of the executive and the legislature and the public in general. The principles have been formulated principally with professional judges in mind, but they apply equally, as appropriate, to lay judges, where they exist.

    Independence of the judiciary

    1. The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.

    2. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.

    3. The judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and shall have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law.

    4. There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision. This principle is without prejudice to judicial review or to mitigation or commutation by competent authorities of sentences imposed by the judiciary, in accordance with the law.

    5. Everyone shall have the right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures. Tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process shall not be created to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial tribunals.

    6. The principle of the independence of the judiciary entitles and requires the judiciary to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and that the rights of the parties are respected.

    7. It is the duty of each Member State to provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to properly perform its functions.

    Freedom of expression and association

    8. In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

    9. Judges shall be free to form and join associations of judges or other organizations to represent their interests, to promote their professional training and to protect their judicial independence.

    Qualifications, selection and training

    10. Persons selected for judicial office shall be individuals of integrity and ability with appropriate training or qualifications in law. Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives. In the selection of judges, there shall be no discrimination against a person on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status, except that a requirement, that a candidate for judicial office must be a national of the country concerned, shall not be considered discriminatory.

    Conditions of service and tenure

    11. The term of office of judges, their independence, security, adequate remuneration, conditions of service, pensions and the age of retirement shall be adequately secured by law.

    12. Judges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.
    13. Promotion of judges, wherever such a system exists, should be based on objective factors, in particular ability, integrity and experience.

    14. The assignment of cases to judges within the court to which they belong is an internal matter of judicial administration.

    Professional secrecy and immunity

    15. The judiciary shall be bound by professional secrecy with regard to their deliberations and to confidential information acquired in the course of their duties other than in public proceedings, and shall not be compelled to testify on such matters.

    16. Without prejudice to any disciplinary procedure or to any right of appeal or to
    compensation from the State, in accordance with national law, judges should enjoy personal immunity from civil suits for monetary damages for improper acts or omissions in the exercise of their judicial functions.

    Discipline, suspension and removal

    17. A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge.

    18. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.

    19. All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct.

    20. Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.

  • Fully endorse Asma Jahangir, and anxiously awaiting HRCP’s signature campaign for a People’s Charter to make judiciary really transparent and answerable. It’s important to have the Constitution amended in accordance with the Charter of Democracy as enunciated and explained in detail in its Section “A” under the head Constitutional Amendments including clauses/sub-clauses 3 (a), i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi; (a-i), (a-ii), (b), (c), (d) and 4.

  • A troubling thought is that the latest crisis and the manner of its resolution have tilted the discretion for judicial appointments heavily in favour of the judiciary, especially the CJ. Some critics are warning that on this path lies judicial dictatorship. That may be too alarmist, but the validity of the argument for separation of powers and checks and balances on all pillars of the state remains unquestionable. If in our past the executive has played havoc with the independence of the judiciary by manipulating appointments, the judiciary too has much to answer for, collaboration with successive military dictators being foremost. If both executive and judiciary can draw the appropriate lessons from this sorry history, there may still be scope for completing the haltingly groping process in motion of revisiting and redefining the appropriate respective spheres of the pillars of the state and ensuring the dividing boundaries are clearly drawn and understood. If the executive and judiciary are able to rise above the distant and recent past and help this process, Pakistan may come to see the kind of institutional stability that has been conspicuous by its absence so far. If not, we may well look back on the ‘settlement’ of the latest crisis as a case of the famous aphorism: A small compromise today engenders a bigger war tomorrow. No one who is a well wisher of the country can view such a possibility with sanguinity.

    http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20102\19\story_19-2-2010_pg3_1

  • Letter to CJ from Naeem Bokhari Posted by Teeth MaestroFebruary 26, 2007
    http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2007/02/26/letter-to-cj-from-naeem-bokhari

    Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
    Chief Justice
    Supreme Court of Pakistan
    Islamabad
    Pakistan

    My Lord:
    I write this letter as an Officer of the Supreme Court of Pakistan; as an Advocate enrolled in the apex Court since 1984 and in the High Courts since 1972; as an Attorney who has paid more income tax from his earnings in the legal profession than many of my friends, colleagues and seniors elevated to the Bench; and as a stake-holder in the dispensation of justice, intimately and vitally interested in the functioning of the Supreme Court.

    Many judges who adorn the Bench in the Supreme Court and the High Court know me over decades, as a person endowed by nature with a pleasant disposition and acceptance of human failings. Towards the courts, my approach has always been of consistent and continuous display of respect and humility. I bow out of conviction, not compulsion. I use the words “My Lords”, because I want to, not because I have to. As an Attorney, I look up to the Court and want to see it on a high pedestal of dignity, compassion and justice, tempered with mercy.

    I have seen my Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Hamood-ur-Rahman, Chief Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Chief Justice S. Anwar-ul-Haq, Chief Justice Mohammad Haleem and how the Court functioned under them in the 1970s/1980s.
    I witnessed the proceedings for the ouster of Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, became aware that the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, had ‘worked’ on some judges of the Supreme Court and saw the physical assault on the Court.

    I was appalled at the manner in which Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan led the Supreme Court and pained at the insinuations against Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, when he was the Chief Justice.

    I was horrified by the establishment of a Bench of five judges constituted by Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui to determine whether reduction in the retirement age for judges was constitutional or not. This was clearly designed to block your appointment. I was against the idea of Mr. Amirul Mulk Mengal being made the Chief Justice before you. Within the limits of my influence (which I readily admit to be very limited), I was totally for you to become the Chief Justice. Justice Javed Buttar is aware of my position, as is the Attorney General of Pakistan. The accelerated issue of the notification appointing you the Chief Justice put Justice Siddiqui’s move to rest.
    I believed that you were vigorous, capable of lifting up the Supreme Court, creating an espirit-de-corps among your brother judges, restoring the dignity and grandeur of the apex Court, particularly considering the long tenure before you.

    Alas this has not come about.

    I am not perturbed by your insistence on protocol (despite my belief that the Chief Justice would rise in the eyes of everybody if he walked from his residence to the Supreme Court and hooters, police escort, flags is just fluff, not the substance of an office).

    I am mildly amused at your desire to be presented a guard of honour in Peshawar. I am titillated by the appropriation of aMercedes-Benz car or is it cars, the use of the Government of the Punjab’s airplane to offer Fateha in Multan, to Sheikhupura for Fateha on a Government of the Punjab helicopter, to Hyderabad on a Government of the Sind’s plane for attending a High Court function, the huge amount spent in refurbishing the chamber and residence of the Chief Justice, the reservation for yourself of a wing in Supreme Court Judges guest house in Lahore, the permanent occupation by the Supreme Court of the official residence of the Chief Justice of Sind, who per force lives in the basement of his father’s house. As his class fellow in the Government College, Lahore, I can vouch that living in the basement will do him no harm.

    I am not perturbed that Dr. Arsalaan (your son) secured 16/100 in the English paper for the Civil Services Examination, that there is a case against him in some court in Baluchistan, that from the Health Department in Baluchistan he has shifted to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), that he has obtained training in the Police Academy, that he reportedly drives a BMW 7-Series car, that there is a complaint against him with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

    My grievances and protests are different.

    I am perturbed that the Supreme Court should issue a clarificatory statement on his behalf. I am perturbed that Justice (Retd.) Wajihuddin Ahmed should be constrained to advise you on television that “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others”. I am perturbed that the Chief Justice should summon Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman to his chambers on Dr. Arsalaan’s account.

    I am appalled that you announce decisions in Court, while in the written judgment an opposite conclusion is recorded.

    In the Petition for leave to appeal filed by Dr. Sher Afghan Niazi, Federal Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (in which Respondent’s Counsels were Mr. Khalid Anwar and Mr. Qadir Saeed), you refused to grant leave in open Court and yet in the written order, leave was granted to Dr. Sher Afghan Niazi.

    On 15-2-2007, Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim complained that in open Court you had accepted his appeal but dismissed the same in the judgement, subsequently recorded.

    If Mr. Khalid Anwar, a former Minister of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, and Mr Fakrhuddin, Senior Counsel, are treated in this manner, the fate of lesser known lawyers would certainly be far worse.

    My grievances also concern the manner in which the last and highest court of appeal is dispensing justice, under your leadership.

    My Lord, the dignity of lawyers is consistently being violated by you. We are treated harshly, rudely, brusquely and nastily. We are not heard. We are not allowed to present our case. There is little scope for advocacy. The words used in the Bar Room for Court No. 1 are “the slaughter house”. We are cowed down by aggression from the Bench, led by you. All we receive from you is arrogance, aggression and belligerence. You also throw away the file, while contemptuously announcing: “This is dismissed”.
    Yet this aggression is not for everyone. When Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada appears, your Lordship’s demeanour and appearance is not just sugar and honey. You are obsequious to the point of meekness. So apart from violating our dignity, which the Constitution commands to be inviolable, we suffer discrimination in your Court.
    I am not raising the issue of verbal onslaughts and threats to Police Officers and other Civil Servants, who have the misfortune to be summoned, degraded and reminded that “This is the Supreme Court”.

    The way in which My Lord conducts proceedings is not conducive to the process of justice. In fact, it obstructs due process and constitutes contempt of the Supreme Court itself.

    I am pained at the wide publicity to cases taken up by My Lord in the Supreme Court under the banner of Fundamental Rights. The proceedings before the Supreme Court can conveniently and easily be referred to the District and Sessions Judges. I am further pained by the media coverage of the Supreme Court on the recovery of a female. In the bar room, this is referred to as a “Media Circus”.

    My Lord, this communication may anger you and you are in any case prone to get angry in a flash, but do reflect upon it. Perhaps you are not cognizant of what your brother judges feel and say about you.

    My Lord, before a rebellion arises among your brother judges (as in the case of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah), before the Bar stands up collectively and before the entire matter is placed before the Supreme Judicial Council, there may be time to change and make amends.

    I hope you have the wisdom and courage to make these amends and restore serenity, calm, compassion, patience and justice tempered with mercy to my Supreme Court.
    My Lord, we all live in the womb of time and are judged, both by the present and by history. The judgement about you, being rendered in the present, is adverse in the extreme.

    Yours faithfully,
    NAEEM BOKHARI
    Advocate
    Supreme Court of
    Pakistan
    Islamabad, Pakistan

  • Every person in pakistan has its price and corrupt zadari knows how to buy , whether it is Aitzaz Ahsan , Asama Jahangir or Kurd

  • Every person in pakistan has its price whether it is Aitzaz Ahsan , Asama Jahagir or Kurd ,and corrupt Zadari knowns how to buy.