ISLAMABAD (TDTOP) – The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, held a hearing on a government petition challenging the composition of the bench responsible for hearing pleas against the constitution of an inquiry commission formed by the federal government to investigate audio leaks. After hearing arguments from the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan and petitioners, including the Supreme Court Bar Association, a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial, reserved its verdict.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Bandial, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, and Justice Munib Akhtar, the three members of the bench in question, were subjected to objections raised by the government. The government argued that their involvement in the case posed a conflict of interest due to the nature of the audio leaks, which included references to Chief Justice Bandial’s mother-in-law, as well as Justice Ahsan and Justice Akhtar.
The petitioners urged the apex court to declare the constitution of the inquiry commission null and void, citing previous court decisions and the judges’ code of conduct, which stipulate that a judge cannot preside over a case involving their relative. They highlighted a past incident where former Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry recused himself from a bench hearing the Arsalan Iftikhar case.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Bandial emphasized that a judge should not become a party in any way. A petitioner, Hanif Rahi Advocate, raised objections to his contempt of court petition, but the Chief Justice clarified that contempt matters lie solely between the court and the contemnor. He urged Mr. Rahi to address the objections raised in his petition and reminded him that a judge cannot be involved in a plea concerning contempt of court.
Later, Attorney General Usman Manoor Awan presented the government’s objection to the bench’s composition, citing the apex court’s order from the previous hearing. The Chief Justice inquired about the specific point the AGP wanted to address and highlighted the importance of focusing on significant issues rather than controversial aspects.
The Chief Justice emphasized the importance of judicial independence, while the AGP read out the Terms of Reference (TORs) of the commission, mentioning that one of the leaked audios pertained to the Chief Justice’s mother-in-law. Justice Akhtar questioned whether the government’s case was based on the audios being prima facie authentic, to which Mr. Awan responded that the commission was established to ascertain the facts.
Justice Akhtar pointed out that a senior cabinet member had held a press conference regarding the audios, even though the government had not yet determined their authenticity. He questioned the validity of objecting to the bench when the reality of the audios remained uncertain and suggested that the minister should resign for making statements without verifying the audios’ authenticity.
The AGP stated that the minister’s statement could be considered the government’s viewpoint and expressed unawareness of any such press conference. The Chief Justice then raised the question of whether the government had used its resources to identify the source of the recordings, emphasizing the importance of discovering who had planted the audios. He reiterated that no judge should be asked to disassociate themselves from the bench based on allegations.
The AGP assured that the government would investigate the matter through the inquiry commission. Following the conclusion of the AGP’s argument, Shoaib Shaheen, the lawyer representing the Supreme Court Bar Association, presented his arguments. He highlighted that the audio leaks began after the apex court took suo motu notice regarding the delay in Punjab elections. He also noted that the TORs of the commission did not address the issue of who was recording the audios, pointing out that all leaked audios originated from a hacker.
The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the government’s petition, leaving the decision on the bench’s composition pending. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the ongoing investigation into the audio leaks and the composition of the inquiry commission.