مضمون کا ماخذ : RTG Game Bài 3d
Govt says ready to face consequences if Justice Isa reference quashed
Federal government’s counsel Dr Farogh Naseem Monday told the Supreme Court that the president, prime minister and law minister are ready to face consequences if presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa is quashed. A 10-member bench led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial heard petitions filed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa against the presidential reference […]
Federal government’s counsel Dr Farogh Naseem Monday told the Supreme Court that the president, prime minister and law minister are ready to face consequences if presidential reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa is quashed.
A 10-member bench led by Justice Umar Ata Bandial heard petitions filed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa against the presidential reference filed against him for not disclosing properties of his family members in his wealth statement.
Dr Naseem maintained that it appears as if government functionaries – the prime minister, the president, and the law minister – are on trial and not the judge who has yet to explain the sources of income for his family members’ properties. “We are ready to face consequences,” he said, while making explicit that the consequences will be ‘across the board’. Earlier, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah observed that the government will also be held accountable if the reference is declared not maintainable. “There should be consequences if the reference is quashed based on malice,” noted Justice Maqbool Baqar. Meanwhile, Justice Bandial observed that no bar association has ever complained about Justice Isa being dishonest. None of the government’s allegations prove dishonesty of Justice Isa, he remarked.
The federal government’s counsel maintained that a judge is the most powerful person in society, and therefore “we must have confidence that the judge is free of any controversy”. “The independence of the judiciary comes through integrity, and therefore a judge should have good public perception,” he added.
At this, Justice Shah inquired whether the counsel admits that this is a case pertaining to independence of the judiciary. He further asked the counsel whether a husband can seek his wife’s tax records from the Federal Board of Revenue. To this, Dr Naseem replied that he will have to ask relevant officials about it. Under which law can the Supreme Judicial Council ask a judge to disclose details of his wife’s properties, inquired Justice Shah, and observed that the public perception of a judge can also be destroyed on social media.
At this, Dr Naseem said that fake news cannot destroy public perception but if a judge is unable to explain the sources of his family members’ properties, then it will affect his reputation before the public.
With regards to the show-cause notice, Justice Maqbool Baqar noted that if the basis of the reference is declared illegal then all of the proceedings will be quashed.
Referring to various SC judgments, Dr Naseem said that the office of a judge comes under the definition of public office and it is mandatory for a public servant that his family members’ lifestyle is not beyond the ostensible sources of income. He maintained that his case is about the sources of income.
The bench asked Dr Naseem yet again as to why the government did not question Justice Isa’s wife about her source of income for the said properties. If the wife had purchased these properties through inherited income, will the judge still be liable to reply, asked Justice Shah.
In the same vein, Justice Yahya Afridi asked whether all judges should be asked about their family members’ tax concerns by the Supreme Judicial Council or by tax authorities. At this, Dr Naseem said that disciplinary proceedings against a judge can only be initiated by the Supreme Judicial Council.
