In a recent development, Supreme Court Justice Athar Minallah stated that the buck stops with the state and the executive to satisfy the full court and that there has been no interference in judicial functions. The jurist’s note came in response to the apex court’s decision to seek proposals from all stakeholders on the institutional response and mechanism to address the issue of interference in judicial proceedings in politically consequential matters. Justice Minallah threw shade on longstanding “unacceptable practices and norms” within the judiciary that have been made acceptable for over seventy-six years, emphasizing that the judiciary needs to be independent and impartial.
Justice Minallah has defended the IHC judges’ letter and stressed the credibility and truthfulness inherent in their oaths to uphold the Constitution. He asserted that their concerns should be given weight unless proven otherwise. He also pointed out that the letter was in the nature of an internal institutional correspondence and was not meant to be made public. Justice Minallah highlighted that the letter of six judges confirmed that the cases of Asghar Khan and Dhama could not stop interference in judicial proceedings and that the judgments were being brazenly violated.
Justice Minallah’s concern over the normalization of deviancy culture within and outside the institution is a grave matter. He has lamented the lack of accountability, which has led to impunity for the worst form of mutilation of the independence of the judiciary. This erosion of public trust in the judicial system is a serious consequence when the courts are perceived to be compromised.
The Supreme Court’s call for proposals is a significant step in addressing the issues outlined in the IHC judges’ letter. The seven-judge larger bench, headed by CJP Isa, has released a written decree, soliciting suggestions from various stakeholders, including the federal government, high courts, and two prominent bars—the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). This directive aims to gather input on how best to formulate an institutional response and mechanism to tackle similar issues, demonstrating the court’s commitment to transparency and inclusivity.
Justice Yahya Afridi has recused to hear the suo motu case. Justice Afridi said that one must not ignore that the high courts under the Constitution perform administrative functions but also provide security to and safeguard judicial functions. He also noted that no one can dispute that the anxiety of the six worthy judges of the Islamabad High Court raised in their letter dated March 25 addressed to the Supreme Judicial Council most certainly warrants positive consideration.
Please, subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com
