IHC CJ convenes full court on ‘interference’ in judicial matters

ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice Aamer Farooq has convened a full bench of the bench on the issue of six IHC judges’ letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) alleging that of interference in judicial matters, ARY News reported.

The sources in the know said the full court hearing will begin at 2:30 pm on Tuesday. It may be noted that the IHC CJ had previously requested proposals from all judges of the IHC.

Sources privy to the matter said the IHC Chief Justice, on the directions of the Supreme Court, had asked the judges to submit their proposals by Monday, April 22. IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq had also sought proposals from the district and sessions judges of Islamabad.

The full bench of the court was convened after the judges submitted the recommendations, the sources said.

Read more: CJP takes suo moto note of the letter from IHC judges

It is pertinent to mention that the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Justice Qazi Faez Isa, on April 1, took suo moto notice of the IHC judges’ letter alleging that intelligence agencies were interfering in legal matters.

The development came after top IHC judges – including Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Baqir Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Justice Salman Rafat Imtiaz – sent the letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) had written. ).

In the letter, they asked for advice from the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) regarding the duty of a “judge to report on and respond to actions by members of the executive branch, including agents of intelligence services, who attempting to interfere with the performance of his/her official functions and qualify as harassment”.

The larger bench of the Supreme Court consisted of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Jamal Mandokhail, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan.

Later, Justice Yahya Afridi recused himself from the seven-member larger bench and said the Supreme Court should refrain from hearing the matter further at the judicial level.