FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2018
- Messages
- 18,063
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Call CJP's disparaging remarks about members of JCP 'inappropriate', and 'unreasonable'
Days after Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial’s address at a ceremony for the new judicial year, two senior judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan voiced their dismay over his remarks regarding members of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) for disapproving nominated candidates.
The concerns were jointly raised by Justices Qazi Faez Isa and Sardar Tariq Masood on Thursday in a letter to the Supreme Court registrar; wherein they stated they were “seated on the right and left of the CJP as he read out his address.”
While they remained quiet during the ceremony to maintain decorum and to “avoid unnecessary controversy and present a united face of the institution,” subsequent reporting of the address compelled them to clarify their stance in case their silence is misconstrued as consent.
“The Supreme Court does not comprise of the CJP alone, it includes all the judges of the Supreme Court,” they wrote.
The two judges said that the purpose of the CJP’s address for the new judicial year 2022-23 was to identify priorities and set the vision for the coming judicial year, “but the CJP said much more”.
The CJP, the two judges said, sought to justify the court’s decisions, respond to criticism of its judgments, and unilaterally speak on behalf of the Supreme Court.
Comments regarding pending cases were also described as “disconcerting”.
“He also made uncalled for and disparaging remarks about the Supreme Court Bar Association and its current and several past office bearers,” the two judges said, noting that accusations of political partisanship were hurled at the office bearers of SCBA for requesting a full court be constituted to hear the disqualification case.
“The Supreme Court having declined their request, the CJP could not disparage and attribute motives to them,” they maintained.
They highlighted that the most inappropriate and unreasonable comments pertained to CJP’s criticism of members of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) – particularly the federal law minister and the Attorney General of Pakistan – for not approving his five nominated candidates for the top court.
“It did not behoove the CJP to attack its (JCP’s) members, and to do so publicly only because they did not support his candidates,” they said.
“Under no circumstances should the chairman of the JCP say what was said,” they said, adding, “The CJP is the chairman of the JCP; therefore, he, more than anyone else, must abide by its decisions.”
The two judges also disagreed with the CJP’s version of how the meeting was arranged, who voted and how it ended.
“It is not correct that his candidates were supported by four members of the JCP, which the (unauthorized) release of the audio recording of the meeting confirms,” they said, confirming rumored audio regarding the decision.
Justices Isa and Masood stated that Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany did not support all the candidates nominated by CJP Bandial.
They further disputed the sequence of events regarding the meeting, noting that it was incorrect to categorize it as pre-scheduled.
“It was called all of a sudden and at short notice during summer vacations notified by the CJP and gazetted.”
Moreover, they also disputed the CJP’s assessment that the meeting was duly adjourned.
“When the chairman did not succeed in achieving his objective, he took the majority decision of the JCP as a personal affront and walked out of the meeting,” they wrote.
They continued in the footnotes:
“When a meeting through majority decides something, the chairman of such meeting cannot just get up and leave the meeting and deem such meeting adjourned.”
“Though the CJP stated that constitutional institutions should not be undermined, violated or attacked, he himself undermined the JCP by refusing to accept the decision of the JCP,” they said, as they reminded CJP Bandial that all members of the commission, including its chairman, are equal.
Justices Isa and Masood said that they have been in the minority for several other meetings of the JCP but never resorted to publicly rebuking or casting aspersions on any member of the JCP.
They also questioned the CJP’s self-aggrandizement on deciding the number of cases when more than a third of the Supreme Court lies vacant. There are 17 seats for judges but only 12 are currently occupied, with five vacant.
“A full court would undoubtedly have decided far more cases,” they said, adding that they repeatedly called upon the CJP to convene a meeting of the JCP (both before and after the notified summer vacations) to nominate judges for elevation to the Supreme Court.
“To stress the urgency, we had stated that not filling the vacancies is reckless disregard of a constitutional duty. But all to no avail.”
The judges continued, “The Supreme Court cannot be placed in suspended animation till such time that members, to use the words of the CJP, ‘support the candidates proposed by the chairman’.”
Days after Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial’s address at a ceremony for the new judicial year, two senior judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan voiced their dismay over his remarks regarding members of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) for disapproving nominated candidates.
The concerns were jointly raised by Justices Qazi Faez Isa and Sardar Tariq Masood on Thursday in a letter to the Supreme Court registrar; wherein they stated they were “seated on the right and left of the CJP as he read out his address.”
While they remained quiet during the ceremony to maintain decorum and to “avoid unnecessary controversy and present a united face of the institution,” subsequent reporting of the address compelled them to clarify their stance in case their silence is misconstrued as consent.
“The Supreme Court does not comprise of the CJP alone, it includes all the judges of the Supreme Court,” they wrote.
The two judges said that the purpose of the CJP’s address for the new judicial year 2022-23 was to identify priorities and set the vision for the coming judicial year, “but the CJP said much more”.
The CJP, the two judges said, sought to justify the court’s decisions, respond to criticism of its judgments, and unilaterally speak on behalf of the Supreme Court.
Comments regarding pending cases were also described as “disconcerting”.
“He also made uncalled for and disparaging remarks about the Supreme Court Bar Association and its current and several past office bearers,” the two judges said, noting that accusations of political partisanship were hurled at the office bearers of SCBA for requesting a full court be constituted to hear the disqualification case.
“The Supreme Court having declined their request, the CJP could not disparage and attribute motives to them,” they maintained.
They highlighted that the most inappropriate and unreasonable comments pertained to CJP’s criticism of members of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) – particularly the federal law minister and the Attorney General of Pakistan – for not approving his five nominated candidates for the top court.
“It did not behoove the CJP to attack its (JCP’s) members, and to do so publicly only because they did not support his candidates,” they said.
“Under no circumstances should the chairman of the JCP say what was said,” they said, adding, “The CJP is the chairman of the JCP; therefore, he, more than anyone else, must abide by its decisions.”
The two judges also disagreed with the CJP’s version of how the meeting was arranged, who voted and how it ended.
“It is not correct that his candidates were supported by four members of the JCP, which the (unauthorized) release of the audio recording of the meeting confirms,” they said, confirming rumored audio regarding the decision.
Justices Isa and Masood stated that Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany did not support all the candidates nominated by CJP Bandial.
They further disputed the sequence of events regarding the meeting, noting that it was incorrect to categorize it as pre-scheduled.
“It was called all of a sudden and at short notice during summer vacations notified by the CJP and gazetted.”
Moreover, they also disputed the CJP’s assessment that the meeting was duly adjourned.
“When the chairman did not succeed in achieving his objective, he took the majority decision of the JCP as a personal affront and walked out of the meeting,” they wrote.
They continued in the footnotes:
“When a meeting through majority decides something, the chairman of such meeting cannot just get up and leave the meeting and deem such meeting adjourned.”
“Though the CJP stated that constitutional institutions should not be undermined, violated or attacked, he himself undermined the JCP by refusing to accept the decision of the JCP,” they said, as they reminded CJP Bandial that all members of the commission, including its chairman, are equal.
Justices Isa and Masood said that they have been in the minority for several other meetings of the JCP but never resorted to publicly rebuking or casting aspersions on any member of the JCP.
They also questioned the CJP’s self-aggrandizement on deciding the number of cases when more than a third of the Supreme Court lies vacant. There are 17 seats for judges but only 12 are currently occupied, with five vacant.
“A full court would undoubtedly have decided far more cases,” they said, adding that they repeatedly called upon the CJP to convene a meeting of the JCP (both before and after the notified summer vacations) to nominate judges for elevation to the Supreme Court.
“To stress the urgency, we had stated that not filling the vacancies is reckless disregard of a constitutional duty. But all to no avail.”
The judges continued, “The Supreme Court cannot be placed in suspended animation till such time that members, to use the words of the CJP, ‘support the candidates proposed by the chairman’.”
‘Suspended animation’: Justices Faez Isa, Tariq Masood take exception to CJP’s address
Call CJP's disparaging remarks about members of JCP 'inappropriate', and 'unreasonable'
www.samaaenglish.tv
