Islamabad:
The Supreme Court ruled that any inaction of a part of a chief judge of the High Court in response to a complaint of an agent of the magistracy concerning the interference of executive agencies would be contrary to its constitutional obligations under article 203 of the Constitution.
“The chief justice of the Lahore High Court: Firstly, Acted Within His Constitutional Authority Under Article 203 to Supervise the Procedings of Subordinate Courts, Including the Anti-Terrorism Courts; and Secondly, in Light of the Dismissal of the Reference Against the Presiding Judge by the administrative judge Chief Justice was also justified in not tathing Further Action on the Transfer Application, Which Lacked Merit and was based solely we have reference that convincing evidence.
“We are aware of the fact that the chief judge of a high court in a province is the paterfamilia of the judiciary in this province. Consequently, any inaction on his part in response to such a complaint of that of a judicial agent would be contrary to his constitutional obligations under article 203 of the Constitution”, a judgment of four images would have read by the judge of Pakistan (CJP) Punjab prosecution The High Court of the High Court (LHC) of the time, the chief judge Lahore, on the requests, by the State requesting the transfer of the affairs of a judge president of the Court Antiterroist (ATC) to another.
The main push of the special prosecutor representing the State was that the conclusions recorded in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the orders were not only useless, but also beyond the mandate of authority devolved to the chief judge.
It should be noted that the former CJ of the LHC, Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, had taken a stand against the interference of executive agencies in the affairs of the judges of the ATC.
He even made a strong exception at the request of the Punjab government to transfer Judge ATC Rawalpindi. The Punjab government was reluctant to appoint the ATCS judges who were recommended by the former LHC chief.
He had dismissed the complaint of former ATC Sargodha judge to the Supreme Court who heard the affairs of Suo Motu on six letters of judges from the High Court of Islamabad against the interference of agencies in their judicial functions.
In the meantime, the government with the help of the former CJP Qazi Faez Isa was able to raise Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan at the Supreme Court. Four judges of the Supreme Court were not in favor of his elevation at the Supreme Court because they thought that the judicial power of the Punjab needed a solid administrative head.
Unlike the former CJ of the LHC, the former chief judge of the High Court of Islamabad was unable to take action on complaints of judges concerning the interference of executives.
A bench of three judges of the Supreme Court led by the CJP Afridi in its written order declared that it was essential to recognize the special supervision authority devolved to the chief judge of a high court under article 203 of the Constitution.
“Essentially, article 203 of the Constitution Entrusts The Chief Justice, As the Administrative Head of A High Court, With the Responsibility to Supervise and Regulate The Proceedings of All Subordinate Courts Within the Province, Including the Anti-Terrorism Courts. Of the Lahore High Court, in His Administrative Capacity, was not only empowered to add the result at hand with his discretion, but also forced to protect the presidents’ judges of the district power of all excessive influence of executives, “said the ordinance.
The court noted that the reference brought by the State against the judge president of the ATC, alleging prejudices, was duly examined by the administrative judge.
“After taking into consideration both the allegations and the response of the President judge, the administrative judge decided to file the reference, but finally rejected it, indicating that there were no insufficient reasons to continue.
“Following this, the transfer request was filed, based solely on the fact that a reference had been made, despite no convincing evidence having been presented to support the allegations. This sequence reinforces the conclusion that the transfer request lacked sufficient merit to justify an additional action,” said the order.
“We have also been informed by the learned special prosecutor representing the State according to which the presidents’ judges of the anti -terrorist courts, whose bias had been questioned by the State, have since been transferred.
“As such, there is no live problem for an immediate consideration. However, the state continues to be injured, in particular by the conclusions recorded in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the contested orders, the costs imposed and the reference of the case for examining this court in Suo Moto Affaire n ° 1 of 2024, as recorded,” the order indicates.
“In our mind, the contested action of the chief judge being essentially of an administrative nature, and this, too, linked to the management and supervision of the subordinates of the constitutional mandate envisaged under article 203 of the Constitution, should not be disturbed, for fear that the cases are obvious,”
The court also observed that the conclusions recorded in the paras. 8 and 9 of the contested orders, concerning the professional conduct of justice officers and state officials seem to be somewhat personal.
“While, aware of the severity of the observations made, we are of the opinion that judicial convenience requires the circumspection, in particular, when we comment on the conduct of executive and judicial officials and all the most without investigation. Who protects them against legitimate control, and critical remarks concerning the civil servants of the State, in particular the Attorney General, must not be treated as a sword for prejudice.
