Monday, February 22, 2010

In Accordance with the Law & Constitution: Justice (R) Rana Bhagwandas

LARKANA: Chairman of the Federal Public Service Commission, Justice (retd.) Rana Bhagwandas feels that recent rulings given by the Supreme Court of Pakistan are neither unusual nor courageous; in fact are in accordance with the law and constitution. He was speaking to media persons after attending a book launch ceremony at SZABIST Auditorium on Sunday. The retired judge said recent rulings are being called unusual because of issuance of some weak verdicts by the past courts. The Supreme Court gives its judgment as per law and constitution, he said. To a question about the sudden arrival of Prime Minister Gilani at Chief Justice reception, he said that we should praise the steps than produce good results. REFERENCE: Recent SC rulings not unusual, says BhagwandasUpdated at: 2228 PST, Sunday, February 21, 2010 Recent SC rulings not unusual, says Bhagwandas Updated at: 2225 PST, Sunday, February 21, 2010

Sunday, February 21, 2010, Rabi-ul-Awwal 06, 1431 A.H
Monday, February 22, 2010, Rabi-ul-Awwal 07, 1431 A.H

ISLAMABAD: A two-day conference on implementation of the National Judicial Policy concluded on Sunday with a directive for judges to avoid attending public functions and meeting members of other organs of the state. The concluding session was presided over by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry who read out the 'Islamabad declaration'. Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, presenting his recommendations for the code of conduct, observed that judges must have faith in the Creator who is the only giver of everything and that they must discharge their obligations without fear of mortal being since fearless judiciary is indispensable. REFERENCE: Judges asked to avoid public events, meetings By Nasir Iqbal Monday, 06 Jul, 2009



The Judges of the superior courts should follow the Code of Conduct prescribed for judges. They should take all steps necessary to decide cases within the shortest possible time. As provided by Article X of the Code of Conduct: “In his judicial work a Judge shall take all steps to decide cases within the shortest time, controlling effectively efforts made to prevent early disposal of cases and make every endeavor to minimize suffering of litigants by deciding cases expeditiously through proper written judgments. A judge who is unmindful or indifferent towards this aspect of his duty is not faithful to his work, which is a grave fault”. Hence, the Chief Justice of concerned High Court may report cases of violation of Code of Conduct including incidents of unusual delays/inefficient performance to the Chairman, Supreme Judicial Council for action. The prime duty of a judge is to present before the public a clean image of judiciary. The oath of a judge implies complete submission to the Constitution and under the Constitution to the law. Subject to these governing obligations, his function of interpretation and application of the Constitution and the law is to be discharged for the maintenance of rule of law. To be a living embodiment of these powers, functions and obligations call for possession of the highest qualities of intellect and character. Equally, it imposes patterns of behavior, which are the hallmark of distinction of a judge among his fellow-men. Therefore, the Committee asked the Chief Justices to report the violations of Code of Conduct to the Supreme Judicial Council for appropriate action. REFERENCE: National Judicial Policy A year for focus on Justice at the Grassroot Level 2009 National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee Published by: Secretariat, Law & Justice Commission of Pakistan, Supreme Court Building, Islamabad SC announces new national judicial policy Monday, 04 May, 2009

I didn’t find anything mentioned below in the National Judicial Policy above.

Article X: in the Code of Conduct 1993

A Judge should abstain from attending or presiding any political, social, cultural, charitable or any other function not connected with administration of justice, bench or bar;

Article. XI: A Judge shall not accept any invitation or reception in his honour from any individual member of bar, public, private or official association, except a bar association or bar council;

Article. XIII: The Council shall meet not later than ninety days to assess, evaluate and consider observance of the Code by the Judges, and complaint or information, if any, against any Judge involving breach of the Code.

جج اپنے فیصلوں سے بولتے ہیں ، جسٹس وجیہہ الدین
کراچی (اُردو پوائنٹ اخبار تازہ ترین ۔17 فروری۔ 2010ء) سندھ ہائی کورٹ کے سابق چیف جسٹس وجیہہ الدین احمد نے کہا ہے کہ جوڈیشل پالیسی کے تحت ضابطہ اخلاق ججز اور انتظامیہ کو گھلنے ملنے کی اجازت نہیں دیتا۔آج نیوز سے بات چیت میں وجیہہ الدین احمد نے کہا کہ وزیراعظم کو چیف جسٹس کے عشایئے میں نہیں جانا چاہئے تھا۔ عشایئے میں نہ صرف وزیراعظم گئے بلکہ ان کا خیرمقدم ہوا۔ ایک سوال پر جسٹس رٹیائرڈ وجیہہ الدین احمد نے کہا کہ جج اپنے فیصلوں سے بولتے ہیں اور مشاورت دوبدو نہیں لکھ کر ہوتی ہے۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ جوڈیشل پالیسی کے تحت ضابطہ اخلاق ججز اور انتظامیہ کو گھلنے ملنے کی اجازت نہیں دیتا، انتظامیہ اور عدلیہ کے درمیان فاصلہ ہونا چاہئے، اور تعلقات میں احتیاط برتنی چاہئے

Registrar of the Chief justice conveyed to the MILITARY SECRETARY of Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan that since there were a number of cases against the government pending before the superior court he could not meet with him.

AND NOW IN 2010 - Having accorded a warm welcome to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at Tuesday’s dinner, the chief justice has thus disappointed many who have been lauding the brave and revolutionary actions initiated by him to uphold the supremacy of law and relaying the seed of an independent judiciary by swimming against the tide in a country like Pakistan, which has been ruled by military and civil dictators for most part of its history. One, however, wonders if the chief justice’s action is in line with the set procedures governing the role, functions and ethics of judges, a subject which is still being widely debated on the planet. REFERENCE: CJ’s meeting with PM against traditions Thursday, February 18, 2010 By Sabir Shah
Who played what role in the drama By Umar Cheema & Dilshad Azeem Thursday, February 18, 2010

Ayaz Amir wrote.....

That was the mother of all sins. So how strange and dripping with irony this omission: about that seminal event, which set in train all the sorrows the nation was to reap thereafter, their lordships in their “historic” judgment have nothing to say. For this of course we must understand the problems of the past. For in 2000, a few months after the mother of all sins, when this matter came before the then Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, the nation witnessed another of those electrifying performances which have made “the doctrine of necessity” so famous in our land, the Supreme Court validating Musharraf’s coup and, what’s more, allowing him a grace period of three years to hold elections. In its generosity, it also gave Musharraf the authority to amend the Constitution for purposes of holding elections. So just as the Anwarul Haq Supreme Court gave a clean chit to General Ziaul Haq’s coup of 1977, another Supreme Court signed a papal bull conferring legitimacy on another illegitimate offspring of our political adventures. Now for an inconvenient fact. On the bench headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan there sat an up-and-coming jurist, stern of eye and distinguished of look, by the name of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Yes, he was among the illustrious upholders of the law and the Constitution who bathed Musharraf and his generals in holy water. ---- Talking of Musharraf’s military rule, what was the role of our present lordships when Triple One Brigade, our highest constitutional authority, reinterpreted the Constitution once again on the long afternoon of Oct 12, 1999? A few judges — Chief Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui comes to mind — did not take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) issued two months later. But if imperfect memory serves, all of their present lordships, at one time or the other, took oath under the PCO. Not only that, some of them were on the bench which validated Musharraf’s takeover. A few, including My Lord the Chief Justice, were on the bench which validated Musharraf’s takeover for the second time in the Zafar Ali Shah case (2005). Of course, we must let bygones be bygones and deal with the present. But then this principle should be for everyone. We should not be raising monuments to selective memory or selective condemnation. If the PCO of 2007 was such a bad idea, in what category should we place the PCO of 2000? And if in this Turkish bath all are like the emperor without his clothes, the least this should inculcate is a sense of humility. REFERENCE: Writing of history or triumph of amnesia? Friday, August 07, 2009 By Ayaz Amir The road to hell — and similar destinations Islamabad diary Friday, January 01, 2010 Ayaz Amir

High treason.

(1) Any person who abrogates or attempts or conspires to abrogate, subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

(2) Any person aiding or abetting the acts mentioned in clause (1) shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

(3) [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] shall by law provide for the punishment of persons found guilty of high treason. REFERENCE: The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

An accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense.

In his petition, the senator, on whose petition the Supreme Court had earlier validated the Oct 12, 1999, military coup by Gen Musharraf, also challenged a provision in Section 3 of the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973, which required the federal government to move a reference for any proceedings under high treason and said this provision was against Article 6 of the Constitution, which does not demand such condition. The petition also asked whether former army chief (Gen Musharraf) did not commit breach of his constitutional oath through his Oct 12, 1999, military coup in disregard of the Constitution and, if faith and allegiance to Pakistan means upholding the Constitution which embodies the will of the people, does it not amount to treason. - The armed forces, the petition alleged, were not only ridiculed but insulted by exploiting them only for personal gains. They were made to climb the wall of the prime minister’s house on Oct 12 and used to maintain Gen Musharraf in his extra-constitutional usurpation of power, the petition alleged. To relinquish the office of Chief Executive in accordance with the Supreme Court’s May 12, 2000 judgment, means that Gen Musharraf should have surrendered the command of the armed forces to the then Prime Minister, Mir Zafraullah Khan Jamali, after holding the general elections, but by not doing so, Gen Musharraf disobeyed and violated the order of the apex court, the petition contended. - Sayed Zafar Ali Shah submitted that General (R) Pervez Musharraf used force against the elected prime minister, overturned the entire political and democratic system, he acted against the integrity and security of the country and was liable to be punished under Article 6 of the constitution of 1973 read with Section 2 of the High Treason (Punishment) Act, 1973. REFERENCES: SC moved against Musharraf; PML-N disowns Zafar’s plea By Nasir Iqbal Sunday, 23 Aug, 2009 02:51 AM PST SC moved for Musharraf’s trial under Article 6 By Sohail Khan dated Sunday, August 23, 2009 SC moved against Musharraf; PML-N disowns Zafar’s plea By Nasir Iqbal Sunday, 23 Aug, 2009 02:51 AM PST

Five judges elevated to SC Bureau Report [Daily Dawn Feb 2000] ISLAMABAD, Feb 2: The government elevated five judges to the Supreme Court on Wednesday. According to a notification, the president has appointed Justice Rashid Aziz, Chief Justice, Lahore High Court; Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Chief Justice Sindh High Court; Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice, Balochistan High Court; Qazi Farooq, former chief justice of Peshawar High Court; and Justice Rana Bhagwan Das, judge, Sindh High Court, judges of the Supreme Court. After the elevation of Justice Rashid Aziz Khan to the SC, Justice Mohammad Allah Nawaz has been appointed Chief Justice of Lahore High Court. Justice Deedar Hussain Shah has been appointed Chief Justice of Sindh High Court and Justice Javed Iqbal Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court. After these appointments, the number of SC judges has risen to 12, leaving five posts vacant. Reference: Five judges elevated to SC Bureau Report

2 – Chaudhry Iftikhar named new CJ [Daily Dawn 2005] By Our Staff Reporter ISLAMABAD, May 7: President Pervez Musharraf on Saturday appointed Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court, as the next chief justice. He will assume the office on June 30 after retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice, Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, on June 29. “The notification has ended speculations of appointment of a junior judge as chief justice in violation of the seniority principle settled under the 1996 Judges case,” commented a senior Supreme Court lawyer on condition of anonymity. Justice Chaudhry will reach the superannuation age of 65 years in 2012, which will make him one of the longest serving chief justices in the judicial history of Pakistan. He will serve as chief justice for over seven years. Earlier Justice A. R. Cornelius and Justice Mohammad Haleem served as chief justice for eight years from 1960 to 68 and 1981 to 89, respectively. Justice Chaudhry was elevated as a judge of the apex court on February 4, 2000. He has performed as acting chief justice from January 17 to 29, 2005. He holds the degree of LLB and started practice as an advocate in 1974. Later he was enrolled as an advocate of high court in 1976 and as an advocate of Supreme Court in 1985. In 1989, Justice Chaudhry was appointed as advocate-general of Balochistan and elevated to the post of additional judge in the Balochistan High Court in 1990. He also served as banking judge, judge of Special Court for Speedy Trials and Customs Appellate Courts as well as company judge. He served as the chief justice of the Balochistan High Court from April 22, 1999 to February 4, 2000. He was elected the president of the High Court Bar Association, Quetta, and twice a member of the Bar Council. He was appointed as the chairman of the Balochistan Local Council Election Authority in 1992 and for a second term in 1998. Justice Chaudhry also worked as the chairman of the Provincial Review Board for Balochistan and was appointed twice as the chairman of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society, Balochistan. Presently he is functioning as the chairman of the Enrolment Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council and Supreme Court Buildings Committee. Reference: Caudhry Iftikhar named new CJ By Our Staff Reporter May 8, 2005Sunday Rabi-ul-Awwal 28, 1426

The independence of the judiciary was largely undermined by the order by General Musharraf in January 2000 that Pakistani judges take a fresh oath of loyalty to his administration. In May 2000, the Supreme Court, reconstituted after the dismissal of six judges who refused the oath, upheld General Musharraf’s military coup of 1999, under the doctrine of state necessity. Pakistan is a constitutional republic. On 15 October 1999, the Government promulgated the Provisional Constitution Order, (PCO), No.1 of 1999, overriding the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, previously suspended following the 12 October 1999 military coup led by General Pervez Musharraf. The PCO provided for the suspension of the National Assembly, the Provincial Assemblies and the Senate and mandated General Musharraf to serve as the new Chief Executive. On 20 June 2001, General Musharraf became President of Pakistan after dismissing the incumbent President, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar. On 12 May 2000, the Supreme Court validated the October 1999 coup under the doctrine of state necessity. However, the Court ordered that the Government hold national and provincial elections by 12 October 2002. In response, President Musharraf presented a four-phase programme aimed at returning the country to democratic rule, with local elections to be held from December 2000 until August 2001. Subsequently, a series of local elections were held in December 2000, March 2001, May 2001 and July-August 2001. However, political parties were prohibited from participating in the contests and party leaders were disqualified from holding political office. REFERENCE: PAKISTAN: International Commission of Jurists

No comments: