SJC immune from judicial review, AG tells SC in Justice Isa case – Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: One day before the hearing scheduled by the Supreme Court of the challenges to the presidential reference against Judge Qazi Faez Isa, Attorney General Anwar Mansoor stressed that the Supreme Judicial Council (CSJ) was immune to any judicial review.

At the last hearing on September 24, a 10-judge SC bank had also raised a similar question for the determination by asking whether the pending proceedings before the SJC could be questioned before the courts under article 211 of the Constitution.

The full court headed by Judge Umar Ata Bandial, which will resume the reference hearing on Tuesday (today), also issued notices to respondents mentioned in the petition, including President Arif Alvi, Prime Minister Imran Khan and the SJC. The entire court is busy with a series of petitions that challenge the presentation of the presidential reference against Judge Faez Isa of the Supreme Court.

On Monday, the Attorney General Mansoor and the Secretary of the SJC, Arbab Mohammad Arif, presented their responses to the Supreme Court.

In his statement presented through Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Aamir Rehman, AG Mansoor explained that the SJC's position in relation to the present case was non-contentious, totally impartial and totally impartial. Given that the SJC has been implemented as a party in the present case, according to the response, it was necessary to highlight that the proceedings before the council were immune to judicial review under the provisions contained in article 211 of the Constitution.

As stated in a 1971 report, titled President vs. Judge Shaukat Ali, the SJC's role was to properly review the conduct of a judge for the sake of purity and the honor of the judiciary, he added.

"It is an investigation of the partners themselves and provides protection because they understand the difficulties, the problems and the situation in which the judge is," said the AG, explaining the investigation before the SJC against a judge of the superior court.

“Judicial independence and judicial responsibility are two sides of the same coin, where the first guarantees the rule of law, the very essence of democracy, and the second establishes public confidence in the judiciary, which means trust public in the ethical standards of a judge, "he argued.

Therefore, Mr. Mansoor said, the composition of the council, the nature of the investigation that had to be carried out and the high constitutional position of the council of the process whose conduct was investigated were the considerations that led to the editors of the Constitution to expel the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to judicially review the proceedings before the SJC.

The investigation into the conduct of a judge on a reference presented by the president was an inviolable constitutional obligation of the SJC in view of the provisions of Article 5 of the Constitution, read with the oath of office rendered by the President (President of the Supreme Court Asif Saeed Khosa) and the members of the council and the prescribed code of conduct for the judges of the higher judiciary.

The response of the AG, however, denied the accusations directed against the SJC, its president and members. He also denied the claims of illegality, irregularity and incorrectness allegedly committed by the council in the procedures with the special reference.

In his response, the secretary of SJC, Arbab Arif, said he had all the judges of the higher judiciary in the highest esteem and sincerely believed that the judges were worthy of the honor and respect granted by the Constitution.

He said that it was also unimaginable and unthinkable on his part to undermine that honor and respect, and added that he had always behaved with righteousness, integrity and honesty, acted in good faith and fulfilled all his duties in accordance with the law.

Mr. Arif denied that during the course of the proceedings in the reference, he, in his capacity as secretary of SJC, had committed some irregularity or procedural illegality, showed partiality or prejudice, acted in bad faith, caused discrimination, participated in the persecution and showed double standards or unreasonable conduct.

He said that since he was the secretary of the SJC he had not exceeded his authority, had shown bitterness or collusion, violated the Constitution and worked together with the government to deprive the petitioner (Judge Isa) of his legal rights.

Posted on Dawn, October 8, 2019