PM's powers in inquiries against judges debated.

ISLAMABAD -- Justice Umar Ata Bandial on Tuesday observed that the prime minister, being the head of government with a majority in parliament, has the right to ask about a superior court judge when certain allegations are levelled.

'The prime minister has a constitutional authority and this court respects that authority,' he remarked while hearing a set of challenges against the filing of the presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa of the Supreme Court.

Justice Bandial, who heads a 10-member larger bench, was of the opinion that if the argument that the PM was nothing or had no role was accepted then how the system would survive. Instead efforts should be aimed at making the system workable, he observed.

Senator Raza Rabbani, representing the Sindh Bar Council, however, said he would not agree with the opinion of Justice Bandial. Under Article 175-A of the Constitution, the bench was apprised, the PM acted as a mere post office in the appointment of the superior court judges, with no other role, as recommendations of the judicial commission and the parliamentary committee went directly to the president for approval.

When the prime minister had no role in judges' appointment procedure, how could he play a pivotal role in the initiation of a process for the ouster of a judge, Mr Rabbani argued.

Procedure adopted by govt for filing of reference against Justice Isa had misfired, Rabbani tells SC

He elaborated that the rights enjoyed by the prime minister were clearly mentioned in the Constitution and those rights were in respect of the trichotomy of powers. If the prime minister had a role as per opinion of Justice Bandial, it would have provided a lever to the executive for interfering in and manipulating the affairs of the judiciary, Senator Rabbani argued.

When the senator cited the 2010 Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry case judgement that came against the reference filed by then president Pervez Musharraf, Justice Bandial said the then president had a clear malice against the then chief justice and in that case the apex court had not touched upon the merits of the case, rather it had taken up only the malice part. In the present reference, however, the Supreme Court had to set certain principles, he observed.

While referring to the arguments that some authorisation was necessary for the opening of the proceedings against the SC judge, Justice Bandial questioned if the executive should put half-baked information before the president...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT