Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Chief Justice of Pakistan(CJP), reminded the parliament on Friday, that judicial conduct cannot be discussed even by parliament. The defendant made this statement during a hearing on the press conferences held by political figures Faisal Vawda and Mustafa Kamal.
The 3-member Supreme court bench with CJP Isa as head and the other members being Justice Irfan Saadat Khan and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan heard the suo motu case that was initiated by Vawda’s (the respondent lawyer) remarks against Islamabad High Court Judges. Vawda condemned the purported intervention of spy agencies in judicial affairs and asking these accusations to halt.
After Vawda’s speeches, Mustafa Kamal also held a press briefing, supporting dual citizenship across all institutions. Now, the politicians are issued show-cause notices and are supposed to offer their responses by June 5th. The court has also asked the PEMRA to give full transcribed records of the press conferences.
CJP Isa pointed out to Additional Attorney General (AAG) A. Rehman that the Constitution prohibits comments on matters pending before court when he was hearing the case. He cited Article 204 of the Constitution as the legal basis for imposing punishment for conduct that offends the judiciary or undermines its processes.
CJP Isa pointed out that although he had not himself responded to criticism, any attempt to undermine the judiciary in future will not be tolerated. He stressed the importance of constructive criticism and cautioned the people against misrepresenting individual cases to demean the whole judiciary.
The CJP emphasized safeguarding the public confidence in judicial offices and cautioned against the acts that could result in the decay of this trust. He highlighted the importance of the lessons learnt, and the move towards a more cohesive and constructive rethinking of judicial behaviour.
Also Read: P.M. Shehbaz Also Oversees Security Of Pakistani Students During Bishkek Unrest
The hearing was adjourned by the court until June 5, which reconfirmed its dedication to the integrity and dignity of the judiciary. While Vawda and Kamal compose their answers, the case highlights a fine line between freedom of expression and the dignity of judicial authority.