The Supreme Court of Pakistan, led by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial, expressed reservations regarding the establishment of the audio leaks commission. The court highlighted that assumptions alone should not be the basis for utilizing the office of the chief justice. Moreover, the executive was warned against interfering with the affairs of the Supreme Court.
Frustration and Ridicule
Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial expressed his frustration during the hearing, emphasizing that judges were initially ridiculed through alleged audio leaks before the commission was formed to investigate the matter. This led to a sense of astonishment, questioning the justice system within the judiciary.
Petitions Challenging Government’s Notification
A five-member bench, consisting of Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsen, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Waheed, heard petitions challenging the government’s notification that established an Inquiry Commission. The audio leaks commission purpose was to probe the authenticity of the alleged audio leaks involving current and former members of the judiciary and their families.
Government’s Ignorance of the Chief Justice’s Office
During the hearing, Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial pointed out that the government neglected the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan while forming the Audio Leaks Commission. He stressed that the office of the chief justice holds constitutional significance and cannot be exploited based on assumptions.
ALSO READ: Nadra Announced Iris Recognition Verification System
The chief justice further emphasized that a judge should not be subjected to contempt petitions, and allegations alone should not require a chief justice to leave a bench.
Powers of the Chief Justice and Judicial Independence
Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial cautioned the executive against interfering with the powers of the court. He stated that the powers of the chief justice or any judge cannot be diminished according to any specific requirement. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary and highlighted the role of the chief justice in deciding whether an SC judge can be spared from a case.
Maligning Judges and Objectives of Audio Leaks Commission
The court questioned the motives behind maligning judges through the audio leaks and demanded an investigation into who was responsible for planting the audios and videos. The Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan read out the terms of reference of the Audio Leaks Commission, indicating that one audio was related to the chief justice’s mother-in-law. However, the court sought clarification on whether the government was aware of the authenticity of the audio leaks before constituting the commission.
Minister’s Statement and Government’s Intentions
The court inquired about the government’s intentions and questioned the actions of the federal interior minister, who held a press conference and played audio clips related to the leaks. The judges raised concerns about such carelessness and emphasized the need for accountability when making false statements. The Attorney General argued that the government’s objection was based on conflict of interest rather than bias, stating that the minister’s statement should not be considered the government’s official stance.
Constitutional Case and Independence of Judiciary
The counsel for one of the petitioners highlighted a constitutional case regarding executive interference in the judiciary. The court clarified that its role was to interpret rather than deliver a verdict in favor of or against any party.
The counsel questioned the acceptance of audio leaks without thorough examination and expressed concerns about the potential for blackmail using fabricated audios. He stressed the significance of an independent judiciary and urged the court to summon records from the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA).