- The judge raises concerns concerning judicial independence.
- The largest bench authority interviewed in the procedures.
- The lawyer highlights the treatment of the founder of PTI in prison.
Islamabad: The High Court of Islamabad (IHC) has initiated Suo Motu’s outrage procedure after a case concerning the non-compliance with the prison superintendent to organize a meeting between the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-E-insaf (PTI) and his lawyer, Mashal Yousafai, has been removed from the list of causes.
Judge Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, who originally chaired the case, questioned the referral and ordered the judicial deputy to submit a written response and also asked for a response from the Islamabad Advocate General concerning the decision to delimit the case and transfer it to another bench.
The court’s action comes after the case was struck off following the formation of a wider bench in accordance with the orders issued by the IHC acting judge, judge Sarfraz Dogar who, on Monday, also charged with merging more than 20 pleadings concerning the rights of the imprisoned Imran Khan.
Meanwhile, expressing strong reserves during the hearing, judge Ejaz pointed out: “Does the state support the transfer of a case to a wider bench without the judge’s consent (concerned)? Instead of doing so, you could also plant explosives under my court and make him explode.”
During the hearing, the assistant judicial sultan of the registrar Mehmood appeared in court and said that the case had been canceled following the directives of the office of the Chief of the IHC.
He added that the CJ IHC had formed a bigger bench to hear the question.
However, judge Ejaz wondered if the chief judge had the power to transfer a case under another judge without his consent.
“What if a highly corrupt chief judge in the future uses this power to arbitrarily transfer the cases? Does not such a system encourage corruption and nepotism?” He asked.
Judge Ejaz also requested which law the various request for the transfer of the case has been filed.
The judge also criticized the interference in legal proceedings, claiming that such actions undermine the principles of justice.
“The rules of the IHC do not allow a chief judge to transfer a case without the approval of the judge president. What you do with the ego will disentangle the very fabric of the high court,” he added.
Judge Ejaz also pointed out that if the state had decided to continue a battle of Ego, its presence before the court had no meaning.
“Should the judge be at the mercy of the registrar’s office? Will the office (from the registrar) decide which judge hears a case?” questioned. He also warned that the in progress actions were equivalent to an outrage from the court.
The Deputy Judicial Registrar replied by declaring that the case had been sent back to the office of the chief councils, who then decided to transfer the case to a wider bench.
To this, judge Ejaz pointed out: “The largest bench acts in the outrage of the procedure of this court.”
Meawn at that time, lawyer Shoaib Shaheen noted that neither the state nor the prison superintendent had been directly affected by parties in this case, questioning the overall equity of the case.
Lawyer Yousafzai has also raised worries about wider implications, saying: “If this happens to us in an open audience, we can only imagine how the founder and Bushra Bibi of PTI and Bushra are treated in prison.”
Judge Ejaz admitted her concerns but stressed that the integrity of the judiciary was at stake. “The guided missile that was directed towards you comes now for us,” he observed, before postponing the hearing until the next day.
It is relevant to mention that during the previous hearing, judge Ejaz had ordered the appearance of the founder of the PTI in person or by video link, but the penitentiary authorities cited security threats as a reason of non-compliance.
Consequently, a judicial commission was trained to determine if Yousafzai legally represented the founder of the PTI in any case. The next day, the prison superintendent consolidated all requests for meetings with the founder of the PTI and asked that they be placed in front of a larger bench.
On March 17, the acting chief judge, Sarfraz Dogar, approved this request and formed a bench of three members under his presidency. Following this, the case of judge Ejaz was struck off, which prompted the procedure of outrage Suo Motu.