- CJP Isa provides 11 causes for changing Justice Akhtar.
- Disrespecting senior advert hoc judges is one among causes.
- Justice Akhtar adjourns a lot of the instances, says letter.
ISLAMABAD: In response to senior puisne decide Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s letter elevating questions on eradicating Justice Munib Akhtar from the judges committee, Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa on Thursday gave 11 causes to justify his motion.
CJP Isa on September 20 appointed Justice Amin-Ud-Din Khan to the three-member judges’ committee, excluding Justice Munib Akhtar hours after the promulgation of the brand new Supreme Courtroom (Follow and Process) Modification Ordinance 2024.
The ordinance empowers the chief justice to appoint a decide within the committee that constitutes the benches. As per the ordinance, the physique will comprise the chief justice, essentially the most senior decide after the CJP and the decide nominated by Justice Isa.
In his letter, the CJP mentioned legally he couldn’t be requested about why he nominated a decide because the committee’s third member, nevertheless, “Since I’ve at all times advocated accountability and transparency I shall present the explanation why Justice Akhtar has been changed.
“Let it’s remembered that this I do due to your insistence, lest somebody takes umbrage.”
He gave 11 causes for his changing Justice Akhtar from the physique.
The chief justice mentioned Justice Akhtar ardently opposed the Supreme Courtroom (Follow and Process) Act, which had eliminated the dominance of the chief justice over the Supreme Courtroom as nicely.
“He was one among two judges who availed the total summer time holidays; detached to the piling backlog instances,” he mentioned.
The letter talked about that whereas on trip and never accessible to do courtroom work, Justice Akhtar insisted on taking part within the committee conferences, suggesting his lack of belief within the subsequent senior decide, Justice Yahya Afridi.
“The Act [also] stipulates that pressing instances are to be mounted inside 14 days however this statutory provision and the constitutional proper to hunt evaluate was negated by his [Munib Akhtar’s] refusal to listen to pressing constitutional instances whereas he was vacationing.
“Disrespecting those that had been his seniors (the advert hoc judges) and choosing 1,100 particular instances and confining them to listen to solely these instances, one thing wholly unprecedented,” it acknowledged as extra causes for eradicating the senior decide from the committee.
The letter talked about Justice Akhtar’s not permitting advert hoc judges to be a part of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Courtroom to listen to the lengthy pending instances as one more reason behind the chief justice’s choice.
Giving additional cause for his selection of chopping Justice Akhtar from the committee, CJP Isa talked about the show of his impolite and unreasonable behaviour in the direction of a distinguished member of the committee and strolling out of the assembly. The mentioned committee comprised all of the chief justices, senior puisne Judges, and distinguished members of the bar.
The apex courtroom’s chief justice additionally mentioned the bench headed by Justice Akhtar adjourned a lot of the instances and sometimes completed its work earlier than 11am; a priority expressed by his companion judges.
He additionally mentioned the senior puisne issued a keep order within the audio leaks case and didn’t repair it for listening to.
In a letter written to the secretary of the Supreme Courtroom on September 23, Justice Shah raised concern over the judges’ committee’s reconstitution and Justice Akhtar’s removing from the composition of the committee inside hours of the promulgation of the ordinance.
Justice Mansoor, in his letter, famous that no causes got as to why the second senior-most decide, Justice Akhtar, was faraway from the composition of the Committee. “Moreover, no causes got why the subsequent senior most decide was ignored and as an alternative, the fourth senior most decide was nominated as a member of the Committee.
“Such unlucky cherry choosing and undemocratic show of one-man present are exactly what the Act tried to discourage and change stance that was upheld by the Full Courtroom Bench of this Courtroom in Raja Amer,” he wrote.
Justice Mansoor additionally emphasised the significance of collegial decision-making inside the judiciary, saying that “the precept of collegial working stands as a cornerstone for making certain justice, equity, and the bigger good of the individuals who search its intervention”.
“The focus of final administrative powers within the fingers of a single particular person, such because the Chief Justice. Runs counter to the beliefs of democratic governance and judicial equity,” he wrote, referencing the Supreme Courtroom’s personal ruling within the Raja Amer case.