SJC dismissed 2017 complaint against me: Justice Bandial

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court was on Monday told that the presidential reference filed against the Supreme Court Judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa was a coordinated attempt by the government and its ally to malign him in the media.A 10-member full court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, resumed hearing of a set of identical petitionschallenging the presidential reference filed against Justice Isa for allegedly not disclosing his foreign properties in his wealth returns.The other members of the bench were Justice Maqbool Baqir, Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Muhammad Qazi Amin Ahmed.Commencing his arguments, Munir A Malik, counsel for Justice Isa, told the court that a coordinated attempt by the ruling PTI and its ally Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) led to the filing of reference against his client for delivering judgment on the Faizabad sit-in.“The reputation of my client was tarnished in the print, electronic and social media, and his character assassination has been in progress since May, 2019 and after he delivered judgment,” Munir A Malik, submitted.“He has been the subject of press talks, press shows as well as the agitation of the so-called lawyers terming him a dishonest person and unfit to be a judge of the apex court. We expect that your lordship will examine all the facts and decide the matter in accordance with the law and the constitution,” Malik said.“No one is above the law. First, I will lay down the factual background leading to the filing of reference against my client and leakage of information to the media. Second, I will deliberate on the facts, leading to maintainability of my client’s petition in the context of Article 211 as well as Article 248 of the Constitution in relation to certain respondents. Third, I will be referring to the legality of reference and argue as to why it ought to quashed.In this context, I will be touching the legal and constitutional jurisdiction to establish that the reference was filed on mala fide intensions and why the reference is bad in law and should be quashed as well as the formation of president’s opinion, Malik submitted.And finally, Malik said he will be arguing on filing of the reference, adding that these were the four stages which he will be arguing in detail in sequence.Malik contended that his client belonged to a respectable family and his father was a close friend of Father of the Nation Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah.Similarly, he submitted that Justice Isa was a leading partner of a law firm, which was one of the highest tax payers adding that the government had awarded the firm Sitar-e-Imtiaz for regularly paying taxes.Munir A Malik further informed the court that in 2009, his client had declared his annual income of Rs36 million. The petitioner is a senior judge of the apex court who was appointed as one-man commission to probe the Quetta carnage, Malik submitted.He further contended that after authoring the Faizabad sit-in verdict in February, the ruling PTI with its ally MQM as well as Ministry of Defence, and Minister for Railways Sheikh Rashid Ahmed filed review petitions against the verdict.“These review petitions were a coordinated exercise for filing a reference against his client and are still pending with the apex court”, Malik said. He said the Ministry of Defense in its petition had contended that the judgment had adversely affected the morale of the armed forces.“These are sub-judice matters, so be careful in your arguments,” Justice Umar Ata Bandial cautioned the counsel. Munir A Malik contended that the review petitions filed against the Faizabad sit-in had contended that there was a misconduct on the part of judge who had violated Article 3 and 4 of code of conduct for judges, but it was a coordinated attempt on the part of the ruling PTI and its ally that led to filing of a reference against his client,” Malik continued.“We cannot judge the minds of people and cannot draw inference from what you are saying,” Justice Bandial told Malik.Malik however contended that the state of mind of both the ruling PTI and MQM was similar, as grounds of both were similar in the review petitions, adding that the federal government had sailed the reference through the Ministry of Law where its minister was from the coalition partner.“The reference went through the eyes of Federal Law Minister,” Munir Malik submitted. Justice Faisal Arab observed that it seemed that legal attorneys of both the parties had exchanged the draft of the instant review petitions and used the same computers.Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the counsel about the time gap of the reference filed after the announcement of Faizabad sit-in verdict. Munir A Malik replied that the judgment came in February while the complaint was lodged by Waheed Dogar on April 10, 2019 in the Asset Recovery Unit alleging non-disclosure of foreign assets in the wealth statement of Justice Isa.Similarly, he informed the court that eight review petitions were filed against the Faizabad sit-in but still no hearing had been conducted in the instant review petitions. The Faizabad sit-in verdict was announced by a two-member bench of the apex court.Justice Yahya Afridi, another member of the bench, said if the reference was filed against those two judges then it would not be malafide. Malik replied that his stance would have been different if the reference had been filed against both the judges who were part of the Faizabad sit-in verdict.Earlier, at the start of hearing a lawyer, Ajmal Mahmood, came to the rostrum and asked about the status of a misconduct complaint he had filed against Justice Bandial before the Supreme Judicial Council.He questioned as to how Justice Bandial could be hearing cases when a complaint was pending against him. Justice Maqbool Baqir asked the lawyer to leave the rostrum. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah observed that the behavior of the lawyer was not right. The lawyer, however, said he will not leave the rostrum.At this, Amanullah Kanrani, President Supreme Court Bar Association intervened and asked the lawyer to leave the rostrum. Justice Umar Ata Bandial, however, said in 2017, the lawyer had filed a misconduct complaint against him with the Supreme Judicial Council and the council had dismissed it.Later on, at the end of the hearing, Justice Umar Ata Bandial asked Amanullah Kanrani to ensure decorum of the court as he was custodian of the rostrum. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until today (Tuesday) at 11:30 am. Malik will continue his arguments.

from The News International - Top Story https://ift.tt/2IRndlr