ISLAMABAD:
Judges of superior courts were conditionally permitted to attend social, political and diplomatic functions with the permission of the chief justice concerned. The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), in its June 11 meeting, approved the amendments to the Code of Conduct for Judges.
Last October, the SJC approved by majority a new Code of Conduct under which superior court judges were absolutely prohibited from presiding over or attending social, cultural, political or diplomatic functions.
However, two members of the SJC, namely Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, had raised strong objections to the approval of the amended code, warning that the changes undermined judicial independence and centralized authority and could be misused to silence dissenting judges.
Soon after the approval of the amended Code of Conduct for Judges, the 26th constitutional amendment was tabled in Parliament for approval in November, and the Supreme Court judges could not ensure its constitutional competence.
Today, the SJC approved new amendments under which judges of superior courts are allowed to attend political and diplomatic functions with the permission of the chief justice concerned. It is unclear whether the “competent chief justice” will also need permission to attend such functions.
Similarly, executive influence in the appointment of chief justices of superior courts cannot be ruled out. Some outspoken judges have also complained against their chief justices regarding the allocation of cases as well as other administrative matters.
Chief justices have the power to authorize or cancel judicial leave. Legal experts believe that the discretionary powers of chief justices should be regulated.
Commenting on the amendment to the Code of Conduct, Abdul Moiz Jaferii said that Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah are no longer members of the SJC and therefore the rules have been relaxed regarding public speaking.
Likewise, the SJC approved the inclusion of “Federal Constitutional Court” in the title of the code. The new title is: “Code of Conduct for Judges of the Federal Constitutional Court (FFC), the Supreme Court (SC) and the High Courts”.
The SJC also amended paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article XV.
According to the amended section, in case of external influence, the judges shall immediately inform, in writing, the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) and the Chief Justice of the FCC or SC, if not the CJP, as well as the two most senior judges of the FCC and SC through the respective registrars.
In the case of FCC or SC, the judge shall immediately notify, in writing, the Chief Justice and the four most senior judges of the court concerned through the respective registrars.
The Chief Justice of the High Court submits the matter to a three-judge committee within two days of receiving the report. The commission will decide within fifteen days.
If the matter is submitted to a judicial decision, it must be decided as soon as possible while respecting the principles of a fair trial and due process.
If the chief justice or the committee, in the case of a high court, fails to respond within the stipulated time, the FCC or SC forum which was informed by the judge takes up the matter.
Last year, the SJC amended Article V of the code, which states that a judge shall not engage in any public controversy – through speech, writing, debate or comment – in any forum, especially on political issues, even if those issues involve a point of law.
“He should not interact with the media, particularly on issues likely to provoke public debate or undermine institutional collegiality and discipline,” the statement said.
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqi said the new Article V was nothing but a gag on judges by restricting their freedom of expression. “How will such judges ever be able to protect citizens’ freedom of expression?” he asked.
Siddiqi further stated that the 26th Amendment, the furlough policy, and the new Article V all serve a similar purpose: “to control and silence independent judges.”
Another lawyer said the SJC and Code of Conduct have proven ineffective in the face of the majority of judges who violate their oath while serving the interests of the executive.
“Corruption, nepotism and violations of judicial oath are tolerated, accepted and even normalized for those who wish to serve their masters,” he said.
