Islamabad:
Before a full -fledged meeting of the High Court of Islamabad, scheduled for today, two CIH judges raised serious questions about the lack of transparency before the High Court.
Judge Babar Sattar and judge Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan wrote separate letters to the Chief of IHC, Sardar Sarfraz Dogar. Copies of the letters were also sent to all the judges of the IHC.
The two judges urged the CJ IHC to include the points raised in the letters of the full field meeting.
Judge Babar Sattar underlined the lack of transparency and justification in the list of cases and the preparation of lists under the supervision of judge Dogar, which was transferred to the HCI of the High Court of Lahore in the midst of a demonstration of five CIH judges, including judge Sattar and judge Khan.
“In contrast to the institutional standards respected, you have created lists that exclude higher judges, including the judge since the main IHC (Mohsin Akhtar Kayani), the Directorate of Divisional Banks.”
He asked if the list of cases was to be based on the CJ’s whims or if there should be transparency to decide who hears what case, while corresponding to the expertise of the judges to the work attributed to them.
“We write every day in our judgments that civil servants are not kings and that their administrative powers are neither without hindrances and should not be exercised in a colorizable manner.
“The cause lists published under your watch show that business is mainly assigned to transferred and additional judges, leaving aside the permanent judges of the IHC who have opposed your transfer to the IHC.
“While exercising the administrative powers of the IHC, should not remember that the judges, including the CJ, are also civil servants – and not kings?” He asked. Judge Babar Sattar also underlined the alleged incapacity of the IHC to exercise surveillance and control over the subordinate judicial power.
“Is the IHC in the process of making its obligation to supervise and control the courts that are subject to it, or does it continue to resemble a set of musical chairs played mainly by the deputies, as required by article 203 of the Constitution?
“Can judges of the judiciary of the Islamabad district fulfill their legal functions without fear? Is IHC not the responsibility of developing the judicial power of district as an independent institution having integrity and efficiency?”
Judge Sattar also told the CJ IHC that under its supervision, they saw the office refusing to issue cause lists to violation of judicial orders and cases being transferred from the file from one to another.
“More recently, we have seen the issuance of lists to deprive two judges (including me) of their docks in a decision to make them dysfunctional with regard to their unique work. These can be successful maneuvers to make certain judges without relevance.
“Our judicial history is full of similar professional faults which are propagated in the authoritarian era. But is such a subversion of judicial independence justifiable?” He asked.
The letter has also opposed the composition of the committees which “undermine” the collegial character of the High Court. Judge Sattar told the CJ of the IHC that he had excluded two superior judges from the IHC of administrative committees.
He also declared that the CJ of the IHC had assumed the powers to issue a circular forcing the judges to ask him for a CNO to travel outside the country, mainly placing judges on the exit control list.
“Neither the Constitution nor the law constitutes such a power to create rules at the CJ office to exercise authority on its peers. The draft rules was disseminated for examination at the meeting of the full field also seeks to concentrate all administrative powers at the CJ office.”
The IHC judge said the judges are among the best paid officials and should be strictly held to take their performance into account by the public.
“But should there not be an objective framework agreed for the evaluation of performance? By virtue of your watch, the IHC has issued biased statistics. These statistics are designed to cultivate the impression that some judges work super effectively, while others do not work at all.
“What if a curious researcher was to investigate the nature (and the number) of the cases allocated to” efficient “judges compared to others, and the nature, quality and duration of the orders that make up their elimination figures?
“Shouldn’t we bring together a consensual performance criterion as well as directives for the judgments to be reported, to seriously seek to improve our performance and take us into account, instead of engaging in misleading advertising?” The letter indicated.
Referring to letters, the former additional prosecutor Tariq Mahmood Khokhar said that the prerogative of a chief judge to act as a master of the list is not an absolute domination but a constitutional trust.
“The power of the list cannot be armed to marginalize judges to protect the executive. It seems that an administration tool has been transformed into a bench instrument.”
Khokhar said that in the countries of the liberal law such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia, cases is regulated by transparent rules, randomization and college guarantees. “No chief judge, he cannot arbitrarily his colleagues.”
He said that in India, power is exercised fairly and cannot be armed to marginalize judges or manipulate the results. The inaction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the face of such shenanigans is a “legal astonishment” signaling the acquiescence in the executive capture of the judiciary.
“Judicial independence does not belong to certain judges, but to the whole of judicial power; reducing it by administrative subterfuge is a constitutional irregularity of the most serious order. I cannot imagine any independent judicial system with such ridiculous segregation,” he said.
He added that Pakistan has no more structural guarantees: the transparent list, the random allowance, the college decision for sensitive cases and effective judicial surveillance.
“We note the judicial independence from the administrative discretionary power. A chief judge as master of the list transcends the independent judges of then, the rule of law, the separation of powers, transparency and impartiality. It is the judicial tyranny under the costume of an administrative prerogative ” inverted ”.
“At a time of” reverse jurisprudence “,” our descent into a continuous legal abyss “.
Lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii said that this is another manifestation of the rule by the list, which has prevailed for several years to crush and control the independent judges.
“He became more public when the former chief judge of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial began to direct the entire Supreme Court through a list of three judges.” He said it essentially sacrificed legal efficiency at the altar of control.
“The demonstration we see here is all the more unhappy because two stellar judges have been reduced in their role and their scope. We are now waiting for the next ax, which we are told could be another violin with the Constitution – and that could simply serve as a last straw,” added Jaferii.
