Supreme Court releases detailed judgement

ISLAMABAD, March 21: The Supreme Court on Saturday released its detailed judgement on the Sharif borthers disqualification case.

On February 25, the Supreme Court through a short order had disqualified the Sharif brothers from holding or contesting public offices. Consequently, Shahbaz Sharif lost his office of the Punjab Chief Minister, while the elder brother Nawaz Sharif was barred from contesting elections.

The Supreme Court released three separate judgments with Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali giving detailed reasons of disqualifying the PML-N chief Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif, while Justice Mohammad Moosa K Leghari, who headed the bench, dealt with the disqualification of Shahbaz Sharif and the petition of Syed Khurram Shah.

In his detailed judgment, Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali observed that by not contesting the stigma of disqualification either Nawaz Sharif was shy, nervous to face the case or does not want to become a candidate, after the submission of nomination papers in the by-election.

The judge has separately dealt with all the issues raised during the hearing, including the application requesting the judges to recuse themselves from the bench, the allegations of PCO judges, bias, locus standi etc.

On PCO-judges, the judge termed it a conspiracy of highest and gravest nature, hatched by some vested interests, to destroy the entire judicial fabric of this highest judicial institution of this country, for their own interest and purpose.

‘It is being bred to get appointed judges of their own choice and interest, in the offices of judges of superior courts, by eliminating the present judges even whose impartiality and honesty might be above board,’ the judgment observed.

This rule of politics, to divide and rule is being played and brought into this realm of judicial institution, to cause disturbance into peaceful, harmonious working and smooth running of this institution, by raising prejudices and differences amongst the judges and by procreating two factions in the judiciary, which is most harmful and sinful act of the petitioners, it said.

All the judges sitting in this court are equal, respectful and revered and brother judges, amongst whom no distinction and discrimination of belonging to one or the other group can be allowed and permitted by any of the judges of this court to be made and raised at this stage and thereafter, it said.

All the judges having taken oath under the present constitution, a few of them cannot be given preference by the petitioners or their counsel over or against the others.  On this basis, unity amongst the judges has been attempted to be tarnished and torn into pieces through these baseless, frivolous and unfounded premises particularly when it has already been ruled out in Tikka Iqbal Muhammad Khan’s case (validation of November 3, 2007 emergency) and thereafter by 17 judges in review jurisdiction.

These PCO judges, the judgment noted, had never been a hurdle or obstacle in the campaign launched for the restoration of those brother judges who either declined to take oath or were not administered the same.

‘The example has been set up by these PCO judges, when they had welcomed those judges to take their previous positions in the judicial system.’

‘If one set of judges had stood up for upholding the flag of independence of judiciary, the other was defending the fort of judiciary from being intruded from the aliens to this complexity of judicial system, although task was different but the goal was one,’ the judgment held.

‘This magnificent building of justice is constructed upon the belief of its honesty and sanctity.’

‘If this image is damaged, then no one will be ready to accept the judgments which are delivered by these judicial institutions. Anarchy and chaos would prevail within the citizens of the country.’

‘When judgments of courts are not accepted, submission and surrender to it is not performed, in that event, street and mob justice is invited, to become the rule of the day,’ the judgment noted.

If a judge is corrupt, his removal can be attempted through lawful means as prescribed by law. But to malign judges, to impute dishonesty and to utter allegation of their being faithless, and law breakers are the words of gravest contempt. The use of derogatory language for the judiciary is a conspiracy to destroy the sacred temple of justice, which would tumble down its structure and there would be none in that event, to reconstruct it, the judgment said.

It must be kept in mind that the judges of this court cannot yield to any temptation and allurement. They are the final adjudicators of the law of the land and their wrong interpretation of law has got far-reaching repercussions on the whole set up and judicial system, as they are minarets of law for the subordinate judiciary to follow it in their judicial cases. Their age, judicial experience and training does not allow them to decide the case without keeping its merits in mind, the verdict said.

Justice Moosa K Leghari while deciding the disqualification of Shahbaz Sharif held that by moving a petition to defend the former chief minister, the Punjab Chief Secretary overstepped his authority in overzealous manner and pushed the province to defend the case of the then sitting chief minister, who himself intentionally opted to remain out of the court and decided not to defend his case instead remained busy in humiliating the judiciary.

There was a plea of initiating contempt proceedings against Javed Mehmood, Chief Secretary Province of Punjab, however, at this juncture we consider it proper to withhold the commencement of contempt proceedings.

In any case the act of Javed Mehmood, Chief Secretary, Punjab on the face of it appears to be subversive of discipline constituting misconduct under the Service Laws. Be that as it may we leave the matter open to be dealt with by the Competent Authority.

 
Dawn (Pakistan)