The Reference against the CJ was filed by the President; he has a right to do so, it was a legal act.
The CJ is accountable, he was simply being held accountable.
The CJ’s lawyers strangled the reference through technicalities, which the govt officials in the legal ministry should have paid competent attention to.
The eventual judgement by the full open court was apparently under no pressure from the govt, the president or the ‘dictatorship’. Yet, was it also as pressure free from the political mass movement and the lawyers’ as well as certain sections of the public’s alleged sentiments?
Did the judgement, a short text of which has been made public and a detailed version is awaited, shed light and take into account the following?
Had the govt taken the right course of action, the correct procedures, would the hearing and judgement and the CJ’s defense lawyers’ arguments and the entire political campaigning have been different?
The Judgment issued on 20 Jul seems like a judgement only on the incorrect procedures by the Govt/President while the content of the reference; the serious allegations, has been simply set aside. Why? We may find out in the complete judgement perhaps?
That leaves us doubting the very verdict and its intent in not taking into account the basis of the entire fuss and rushing to conclude the entire case was mala fide. However, shouldn’t the SC, as the supreme legal authority, have taken a little more professional and strict look at the content of the reference and it’s basis as well as the gravity of such allegations against the CJ and regardless of political or sentimental pressure, shouldn’t there have been more concern and interest shown by the supreme legal authority to make sure how true/untrue the allegations were, and whether the CJ was guilty of the charges or innocent? There may be some mention in the detailed ruling, but I don’t think it would contain any significant points; had there been any worthwhile explanation it would have been included in the short order to clarify concern.
*If it is indeed true that the Bench ruling rushed up towards mala fide intent to dispose off the entire case, politically we wonder if the comments made atleast twice by Justice Ramday asking Sharifuddin Pirzada to suggest a solution ended up in this compromising solution…? *
*Legally we wonder what precedent did the SC set for all future cases; from mere theft to massacres!? That is if the mere procedure of brining into notice of legal authorities or accountability is wrong, any offender of the law no matter how big, small, insignificant, influential or powerful, can escape free from right under the nose of not just the local ‘thana’ but even the Supreme Court!?
If it is not so and there is infact more light and detail shed on these concerns in the detailed ruling, will it contain recommendations for the govt/president to follow up with re-filing in due and legal course?
Again, if not so, Why!? Why does the SC chose to look the other way when there are fingers being pointed towards wrong-doings of a high official representing the legal system of Pakistan apparently with proof backing up? Isn’t the SC bound to make sure and investigate and punish according to law if found guilty of misconduct?
What were the arguments presented by Justices Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, M. Javed Buttar and Saiyed Saeed Ashhad?
Technically, this hearing was merely whether such a case can be heard by the SJC and whether a CJ can be held dysfunctional. It was not supposed to ‘set aside’ the entire reference.
Fine if CJ cant be sent on leave or held dysfunctional, fine if SJC cant hear such a case, but with all that said and done, why doesnt the SC proceed towards the next obvious hearing; the actual reference, with the full bench in open court with the CJ functional!? And even if the govt/Presidnet refuse to pursue, where are the Suo Moto actions?
With unconvincing answers, the entire hue & cry for independence of judiciary, supremacy of the constitution and law & order, as well as the gold plated image of the legal profession, which has its equal share of wrongdoers, and also the intentions and agendas of the lawyers, judges and politicians become apparent and appear a hoax, and nothing but empty selfish slogans with no sincerity, and no similarity in words and actions.
I am not sure Mush is strong enough for any panj sala mansuba’s anymore.
