ISLAMABAD: The proceedings of a judicial commission to probe recently leaked audio tapes that plunged the pugnacious judiciary into controversy were adjourned indefinitely on Saturday in light of a Supreme Court stay order against it.
Last week, the government of Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) notified a three-judge commission to investigate the secretly-recorded conversations that it claimed have raised questions about the “independence, impartiality and uprightness” of superior court judges in administering justice.
Headed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the panel also includes Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan of the Balochistan High Court (BHC) and Chief Justice Aamer Farooq of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
A notification issued by the Cabinet Division declared that several leaked conversations over the past year have eroded public trust and raised “serious concerns” about the impartiality of judges.
The communiqué, however, showed scant interest in uncovering the government agency responsible for the illegal recordings of conversations, which spared not even the family members of the top judges.
Subsequently, former prime minister Imran Khan petitioned the Supreme Court against the commission, nominating the state and the ministry of interior, which is headed by a confidante of deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif, as respondents.
Acting on the petition, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, on Friday stayed the proceedings of the commission.
During the hearing on Saturday, Justice Isa cited Friday’s “judicial order” while stopping the meeting, and said the commission will issue a written order for the proceedings.
He, however, raised questions about the validity of the same order.
He said: “The petitioners are informing us that there is an injunction, and we cannot proceed with this inquiry. We will not take further action at the moment.” He further mentioned that an “action order” would be issued at a later time.
At the outset of the hearing, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan informed the commission about the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Justice Isa highlighted that according to the rules of the Supreme Court, a decision should be made after hearing all parties involved. He questioned why the commission, as a party to the matter, was not given an opportunity to be heard.
Responding to a question about Awan’s presence at the proceedings, he mentioned that he had been verbally informed to appear before the Supreme Court bench, and a notice was issued after the hearing.
Justice Isa pointed out that the commission was not notified before the hearing and questioned how it was prevented from functioning. He asked Awan why the bench had not informed them that their objections had already been addressed.
Justice Isa addressed the issue of privacy raised in the petition heard by the Supreme Court, stating that the right to privacy is limited to one’s home. He questioned whether CCTV cameras on the streets were also a violation of privacy.
He emphasized that the commission’s work did not breach anyone’s privacy. He also mentioned that certain individuals, such as Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Abid Shahid Zuberi and lawyer Shoaib Shaheen, who had filed the petition, had not appeared before the commission.
Referring to lawyer Khawaja Tariq Raheem, who had cited a medical check-up as the reason for not attending the proceedings, Justice Isa highlighted that Abdul Qayyum Siddiqui, a reporter for Geo News, was the only person who responded to the notice.
He noted that some parties had no objections to the commission’s actions.
Justice Isa questioned Awan about Twitter and the suspected hacker responsible for leaking audio clips. Awan expressed limited knowledge of the matter and defended the commission, saying it should be allowed to determine the source and authenticity of the leaked conversations.
Justice Isa suggested that the audios may have been leaked by those featured in them and emphasized the importance of an investigation.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s declaration that “the subject matter of the reference transcends any particular high court,” Justice Isa emphasized that high courts were not subordinate to the Supreme Court.
He noted the federalism discussed by the five-member bench contradicted its own rulings, suggesting that federalism had been undermined.
Justice Isa also mentioned the judge’s oath, which requires the performance of duties according to the Constitution and the law. He stated that the commission had been formed under the Commission of Inquiry Act and mentioned that he would have excused himself if the commission was not allowed under his oath.
