First, the non-functional CJ’s counsel objected to two judges on the Supreme Judicial Council. Those justices are now excluded from sitting on the “full bench” of the Supreme Court. Now the CJ’s team are objecting to two (or more) other judges who they say are biased against Ch. Iftikhar! This not only again demonstrates how much resentment there is between the CJ and his colleagues on the Supreme Court, but also that he is clearly after selective justice rather than fair.
Aitzaz for more exclusions
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s counsel on Monday sought the exclusion of a few more controversial judges from the Full Court, expecting that any judge who will benefit from the CJP’s removal will himself withdraw from the hearing of his case. Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan said, “We reserve the right to oppose the inclusion of two senior judges who had lunch with the attorney general and Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada at a time when the case of the CJP was pending in the Supreme Court and an application for the Full Court had been filed.” Ahsan was referring to Justices Nawaz Abbasi and Faqeer Khokhar. He said there would be other judges in the formation of the Full Court who were beneficiaries in the CJP case and as such they should withdraw themselves. “Otherwise, we reserve the right to raise objection against them,” Ahsan said. He said the government’s mala fide intention had become evident. “When we sought the Full Court, the government opposed it. When a five-member bench was set to hear the case, the government expressed distrust in the bench, made a U-turn and demanded the Full Court. This is dilatory and a mala fide tactic,” Ahsan added. staff report
Re: Non-functional Chief Justice v Supreme Court of Pakistan
Non-functional CJ’s counsel wants to hound out any judges they don’t like, jut like his supporters have been hounding out hundreds, thousands of lawyers from the bar associations.
Re: Non-functional Chief Justice v Supreme Court of Pakistan
After rejecting the non-functional CJ’s objections to some judges sitting in the full court, the Supreme Court delivers another judgement which has taken note of the increasing politicisation of the issue by the opposition parties.
SC’s new code of conduct: Debate on the presidential reference banned
The Supreme Court (SC) has issued new code of conduct for the media regarding the discussion, analysis and coverage of presidential reference against Chief Justice Chaudhry Muhammad Iftikhar. As a result ban has been imposed on debate by media over the presidential reference. Besides no body can chant slogans in the premises of the SC during the proceedings of the reference. According to new code of conduct such discussion, analysis and coverage, which will influence the SC proceedings will come under the rules of contempt of court. The reports, which will scandalize the said issue, will also regarded as the contempt of court. The action will be taken against those who will violate the new SC code of conduct. Under SC code of conduct special security passes will be issued for the media coverage of the hearing of the presidential reference.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the print and electronic media, lawyers’ community and general public to refrain from comments, discussions and write- ups which are likely to interfere with the legal process, ridicule, scandalize or malign the court, any of its judges or touching the merits of the presidential reference against Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, as the matter is sub- judice before the Supreme Judicial Council and the constitution petitions on the subject are also sub- judice before the full court of the apex court. A press note issued by the Supreme Court said that any violation in this regard will be dealt with under the Contempt of Court law
Re: Non-functional Chief Justice v Supreme Court of Pakistan
Justice Falak Sher opts out of bench hearing on non-functional CJ’s petition.
Interesting I did not know that he (Justice Falak Sher) was already challenging Ch.Iftikhar’s right to be the CJ! on the basis of seniority. Yet another SC judge that Ch.Iftikhar has a problem with!
Re: Non-functional Chief Justice v Supreme Court of Pakistan
The SC justices have been having fun laughing at Ch.Aitzaz’s suggestion that two judges should have been excluded for having lunch with govt lawyers.
Chuckles as SC debate veers round lunches
Some light remarks about offers of lunch to judges were made in the midst of serious arguments in the Supreme Court on Thursday on the powers of the Supreme Judicial Council to proceed against Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. A 13-member larger bench, hearing a set of 23 identical petitions challenging the filing of the reference against the chief justice, composition of the SJC and its competence to try the chief justice, decided to sit from Monday to Thursday each week to decide the petitions. The luncheon issue cropped up when Malik Qayyum, defending the government in the petition of the Watan Party, cited the case “Federation versus Akram Sheikh” in which it had been observed that a judge should not even hear a party with whom he had friendly relations and said that some judges having a lunch had hit the headlines in some newspapers. “Had I taken a lunch with some judge, I also would have been mentioned in the newspapers,” he said. The reference was obviously to a news item abut two senior judges on the larger bench having lunch with government’s top aides directly involved in the judicial battle relating to the removal of the chief justice.
Later, in a code of conduct issued for the media, the Supreme Court described the controversy as unfounded and an insinuation by the media, explaining the lunch by two judges in the Islamabad Club with Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada and Attorney- General Makhdoom Ali Khan was a mere coincidence. On Thursday, Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, heading the bench, said in a lighter vein that nobody had ever taken him to lunch and expressed the wish that the counsel should take him to lunch after the day’s hearing.“I and Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan will take all the judges to lunch to end the controversy once and for all,” Mr Qayyum suggested. The idea was, however, rejected by Mr Ahsan, representing the chief justice, saying he was not in the habit of having lunches with judges when his cases were pending with them. “All during this period, I kept this secret fully to my chest and never mentioned the controversy despite a lot of persuasion,” he said, adding that he had received 200 text messages per hour in a day, urging him to raise the issue during the hearing in the court. “Parties and lunches never influence a judge if he is a judge,” Justice Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi observed. “I was wondering whether we judges would stand disqualified as we are close friends of the chief justice,” Justice Faqir Mohammad Khokhar observed. However, Justice Ramday explained that the judges were not close friends of the chief justice, but his colleagues working closely with him. He also observed that the real stakeholders to institutions like the superior judiciary were the people of the country and not the judges or court officers performing the duty of dispensing justice. Mr Qayyum argued that the chief justice could be proceeded against in the SJC because he was similar to other judges of the Supreme Court. “If we accept the position taken by the chief justice that he is different from other judges, then all the protection enjoyed by other judges will not be available to him and he can be removed even by a simple notification by the federal government.” “Even this is not necessary, a letter is enough,” Justice Ramday observed in a lighter vein. On the maintainability of the petitions, Mr Qayyum argued that the SJC was not a court of law but a constitutional body comprising highest judicial officers.
“I and Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan will take all the judges to lunch to end the controversy once and for all,” Mr Qayyum suggested.