Lawyers and Civil Society 🙂 think that after March 9, 2007, they have brought in French Revolution but they are wrong whole Movement was started and manipulated to Finger Musharraf and ease out army from the mess the army itself created. History is as under: [Asma Jahangir was part of that Restoration Movement as well]

The detailed verdict of NRO carried references from Ghazali and Rumi, these Judges should have read the life history of Imam Malik and Imam Abu Haneefa [May Allah have mercy on their souls] because they never issued Fatwa in favour of Rulers and preferred to be flogged and imprisonment [Imam Malik was beaten so mercilessly that one of his arm was broken but he never budged]
I just want to ask that where was the Integrity when Judges were allowing/legalizing Martial Law in 2000 and then again 2005 and in 2010 those very Judges are talking about Sadiq and Ameen???? Why didn’t they resigned en masse when Musharraf elevated them from High Courts to Supreme Court to legalize Martial Law.
“judge not lest ye be judged”
When Musharraf and Generals enforced Martial Law on 12 Oct 1999 they created a department called National Accountability Bureau and one of the most important prosecutor [a lady lawyer] was appointed on a key post in NAB. Guess what! Before Martial Law she was defending one of the accused under arrest since 1996 [when the second government of PPP was dismissed] and after 12 Oct 1999 the same Prosecutor was leading NAB against the same. I wont any name but many leading Lawyers of Free Judiciary Movement [not the Lahore wala] were very close to her. Not only that Former CJ SC Mr Saeeduz Zaman was also very “close” to her.
This is the reality of “Accountability Bureau of Musharraf, Ehtisab Bureau of Nawaz Sharif, Ehtisab Commission of Leghari and Justice [R] Ghulam Mujjaddid Mirza and Corruption References filed by Ghulam Ishaq Khan [he within two years accepted Zardari as Caretaker Fed. Minister (message was delivered by Roedad Khan – the Anti NRO Chap) after filing the reference against him], GIK and his Roedad Khan saw to it [between 1990 – 1993] that Cases against BB/AAZ are handled properly and they get bail regularly [what was the purpose to file reference when you have accepted AAZ as Minister]
Writing of history or triumph of amnesia? Friday, August 07, 2009 By Ayaz Amir http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=191800
That was the mother of all sins. So how strange and dripping with irony this omission: about that seminal event, which set in train all the sorrows the nation was to reap thereafter, their lordships in their “historic” judgment have nothing to say. For this of course we must understand the problems of the past. For in 2000, a few months after the mother of all sins, when this matter came before the then Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, the nation witnessed another of those electrifying performances which have made “the doctrine of necessity” so famous in our land, the Supreme Court validating Musharraf’s coup and, what’s more, allowing him a grace period of three years to hold elections. In its generosity, it also gave Musharraf the authority to amend the Constitution for purposes of holding elections.
So just as the Anwarul Haq Supreme Court gave a clean chit to General Ziaul Haq’s coup of 1977, another Supreme Court signed a papal bull conferring legitimacy on another illegitimate offspring of our political adventures. Now for an inconvenient fact. On the bench headed by Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan there sat an up-and-coming jurist, stern of eye and distinguished of look, by the name of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Yes, he was among the illustrious upholders of the law and the Constitution who bathed Musharraf and his generals in holy water.
The road to hell — and similar destinations Islamabad diary Friday, January 01, 2010 Ayaz Amir http://thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=216323
Talking of Musharraf’s military rule, what was the role of our present lordships when Triple One Brigade, our highest constitutional authority, reinterpreted the Constitution once again on the long afternoon of Oct 12, 1999? A few judges — Chief Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui comes to mind — did not take oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) issued two months later. But if imperfect memory serves, all of their present lordships, at one time or the other, took oath under the PCO. Not only that, some of them were on the bench which validated Musharraf’s takeover. A few, including My Lord the Chief Justice, were on the bench which validated Musharraf’s takeover for the second time in the Zafar Ali Shah case (2005). Of course, we must let bygones be bygones and deal with the present. But then this principle should be for everyone. We should not be raising monuments to selective memory or selective condemnation. If the PCO of 2007 was such a bad idea, in what category should we place the PCO of 2000? And if in this Turkish bath all are like the emperor without his clothes, the least this should inculcate is a sense of humility.
Do keep in mind that Hafeez Pirzada who was opposing the NRO was one of the leading attorney in Zardari Cases. If you would go through the details of Cases and Parties these Lawyers [who run Judiciary Movement] have handled you would be amazed. Akram Sheikh daily appear on GEO TV for the sake of Judiciary and Rule of Law whereas he was General Aslam Beg’s Lawyer in Mehran Bank Scandal Case [case is pending since 1996], Hafeez Pirzada was one of the beneficiary of Mehran Bank [The recipients included Khar two million, Hafeez Pirzada three million We never learn from history – 7 By Ardeshir Cowasjee August 12, 2007 Dawn]
At the over three-hour-long dinner meeting, the 35 senior lawyers, including four former presidents of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Aitzaz Ahsan, Justice (retd) Tariq Mehmood, Ali Ahmed Kurd and Muneer A. Malik, were unanimous in their view that Barrister Ahsan still held sole authority to issue any protest calls or set any line of action, one of the participants told Dawn on condition of anonymity. Senior lawyers back Aitzaz Ahsan By Nasir Iqbal Thursday, 04 Feb, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/16-senior-lawyers-back-aitzaz-hs-07
Lawyers divided over strike call By Nasir Iqbal Tuesday, 26 Jan, 2010 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/12-lawyers-divided-over-strike-call-710–bi-11
Earlier it was revealed that SCBA’s Qazi Anwar was sentenced nine months in jail for possessing explosives in 1979, adding Lahore High Court curtailed his punishment; however, his charge was kept unchanged. BC approached for Qazi Anwar’s ineligibility Updated at: 1445 PST, Monday, February 01, 2010 http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=97613
Latest is as under: Monday, February 08, 2010, Safar 23, 1431 A.H http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/feb2010-daily/08-02-2010/u20419.htm
’عدلیہ کی آزادی کے باوجود کچھ نہیں بدلا‘
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2009/09/090907_kurd_hit_judiciary_rr.shtml
Monday, 7 September, 2009, 12:58 GMT 17:58 PST
عدلیہ انتظامیہ جھگڑے میں نیا موڑ
رفاقت علی
بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، لندن
آخری وقت اشاعت: اتوار, 14 فروری, 2010, 22:17 GMT 03:17 PST
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/02/100213_judiciary_executive.shtml
سپریم کورٹ نے خود کئی بار ججز کیس کی دھجیاں بکھیریں اور ایک بار
تو لاہور ہائی کے ایک ایسے جج کو سپریم کورٹ میں تعینات کر دیا جن کا ہائی کورٹ میں ججوں کی سینارٹی لسٹ پر سولہواں نمبر تھا۔ جب سپریم کورٹ میں ججز کیسز کی واضح خلاف ورزی کو چیلنج کیا گیا تو سپریم کورٹ نے حکم صادر کیا کہ وہ کسی جج کو سپریم کورٹ کا جج بنا سکتی ہے۔ ججوں کی تعیناتی کے سلسلے میں سپریم کورٹ نے اپنی ضرورت کےمطابق کئی متضاد فیصلے صارد کر رکھے ہیں اور شاید موجودہ سپریم کورٹ کو بھی ’پی سی او سپریم کورٹ‘ کےایک فیصلے کا بھی سہارا لینا پڑے گا جس کے تحت صدر کے اس اختیار کو مانا گیا تھا کہ وہ ہائی کورٹ کے سینئر جج کو سپریم کورٹ میں تعینات کر سکتا ہے۔
چیف جسٹس آف پاکستان جسٹس افتخار محمد چودھری جسٹس خواجہ شریف کو لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا چیف جسٹس رکھنے پر کیوں بضد ہیں اس کا کسی کو علم نہیں ہے۔ جسٹس خواجہ شریف کو میاں نواز شریف کے دور حکومت میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا جج مقرر کیا گیا تھا۔
لاہور ہائی کے سینئر جج جسٹس میاں ثاقب نثار کو بھی نواز شریف دور میں ہائی کورٹ کا جج مقرر کیا گیا۔ جسٹس ثاقب نثار میاں نواز شریف دور کے وزیرِ قانون خالد انور کے جونیئر تھے اور اسی دور حکومت میں انہوں نے سیکرٹری قانون کا قلمدان بھی سنبھالے رکھا
Crucial History of Appointment of Judges Case is under:
Appointment of Judges: History 1993 – 1997.
http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/appointment-of-judges-history-1993-1997.html

Saqib Nisar and Khalid Anwer [PML-N]
NRO: Kamran Khan & Dirty Role of Barrister Khalid Anwer. http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2010/01/nro-kamran-khan-dirty-role-of-barrister.html
PAKISTAN: International Commission of Jurists http://www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/pakistan.pdf
The independence of the judiciary was largely undermined by the order by General Musharraf in January 2000 that Pakistani judges take a fresh oath of loyalty to his administration. In May 2000, the Supreme Court, reconstituted after the dismissal of six judges who refused the oath, upheld General Musharraf’s military coup of 1999, under the doctrine of state necessity. Pakistan is a constitutional republic. On 15 October 1999, the Government promulgated the Provisional Constitution Order, (PCO), No.1 of 1999, overriding the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, previously suspended following the 12 October 1999 military coup led by General Pervez Musharraf. The PCO provided for the suspension of the National Assembly, the Provincial Assemblies and the Senate and mandated General Musharraf to serve as the new Chief Executive.
On 20 June 2001, General Musharraf became President of Pakistan after dismissing the incumbent President, Muhammad Rafiq Tarar. On 12 May 2000, the Supreme Court validated the October 1999 coup under the doctrine of state necessity. However, the Court ordered that the Government hold national and provincial elections by 12 October 2002. In response, President Musharraf presented a four-phase programme aimed at returning the country to democratic rule, with local elections to be held from December 2000 until August 2001. Subsequently, a series of local elections were held in December 2000, March 2001, May 2001 and July-August 2001. However, political parties were prohibited from participating in the contests and party leaders were disqualified from holding political office.

However, the presidency’s inability to win the argument against the judiciary’s interpretation of the basic law does not mean that it has no case. It can be shown that the judiciary’s rigid position on the total extinction of the executive’s role in the process of judges’ selection will not be sustainable in the long run.

To begin with, the 1996 judgment in the judges case has not been universally accepted as a piece of unblemished wisdom. That it was a reaction to a series of government’s attacks on the globally acknowledged rights of the judiciary is understandable.

But if the executive’s policy of deciding on judicial appointments without reference to the heads of the judiciary marked one end of the pendulum the 1996 verdict swung the pendulum to the other extreme. Neither position is in accord with the principles of democratic dispensation and the separation of powers.

Quite a few learned writers on the subject have declared that neither the executive nor the judiciary should have veto powers in the matter of appointment of judges. Indeed the dominant trend is to make key judicial appointments subject to consensus between the ruling party and the opposition.

An Indian authority has summed up the argument in these words: “Giving finality to the judges is as bad as giving finality to the government. A veto is bad wherever it is vested.

Therefore, the power to appoint judges must be vested in a body that is independent and represents the government, the opposition as well as the judiciary. This has also been recommended by the (Indian) National Commission to Review the Working of the constitution (NCRWC).”

Besides, the judiciary itself has not always been able to respect the 1996 judgment. The latest instance of its deviation was the reported move to appoint Justice Khalil Ramday (whose qualifications and outstanding merit cannot be questioned though) as an ad hoc judge of the Supreme Court soon after his retirement. This was contrary to the 1996 ruling that no ad hoc judge should be appointed to the apex court against a permanent vacancy.

Sooner or later the 1996 verdict will have to be reviewed with a view to achieving a friction-less balance between the judicial and executive organs of the state with due regard for the majesty of the people’s will.

All political actors in the field should keep in mind the possibility that they may find themselves, on coming into power, in a predicament similar to President Zardari’s.

Unfortunately, the debate on the subject has been muddied by two factors. First, the trust deficit between the executive and the judiciary has reached absolute limits.

It seems neither side is inclined to stop suspecting the motives of the other. In this situation a rational understanding, even of the kind reached between the president and the prime minister in 1989, is apparently impossible. Only time will tell how long and in what form yesterday’s compromise will endure.

Secondly, it is difficult to dispel the impression that political parties (where they are in power), privileged lawyers’ groups and, if one may be permitted to say, some elements around the judicial establishment, are trying to grab the judiciary’s commanding heights and the reasons are obvious.

All this does not augur well for the future. The energies of the state’s two vital organs could continue to be dissipated in haggles no democratic polity can afford, and access to justice might become more and more difficult for the poor and the marginalised.

Have the people of Pakistan forfeited their right to a decent deal from the masters of their destiny?

Self-defeating exercises
By I.A. Rehman
Thursday, 18 Feb, 2010
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/12-selfdefeating-exercises-820–bi-04

Article by Abbas Ather
Supreme Court Ki Taqat
http://express.com.pk/images/NP_LHE/20100218/Sub_Images/1100859728-2.gif

CJ’s meeting with PM against traditions Thursday, February 18, 2010 By Sabir Shah
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=27324

LAHORE: The arrival of Premier Yousuf Raza Gilani at Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s dinner hosted for Justice (retd) Khalilur Ramday in Islamabad on Tuesday night may have mellowed down the government-judiciary tiff a bit by spreading smiles all over but it has certainly pained thousands of litigants across the country who have pinned high hopes in an otherwise widely-deemed independent judicial system since March 2007.

These litigants, many of whom had provided energy to the chief justice by practically expressing solidarity with him on the roads after he was deposed twice by Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf in 2007, today feel that if the prime minister can meet the Supreme Court judges with such ease while he is actually defending the NRO beneficiaries in his cabinet despite explicit Supreme Court orders to treat the allegedly corrupt elements in accordance with the law, then a commoner should also have the right to meet the judges and defend himself or herself in a ‘more congenial’ and ‘more informal’ environment.

Already disturbed by an unprecedented backlog of cases in courts due to one reason or the other, the premier’s meeting with the chief justice over a sumptuous dinner may have actually rubbed salt in the wounds of waiting litigants.

While Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in August 2009, had exhorted his country’s judiciary “to wipe every tear of every waiting litigant” by eliminating the scourge of a huge backlog of cases, his Pakistani counterpart is making every effort to prevent his cabinet members from facing the law rather than convincing the country’s president to appoint judges in time to minimise the miseries of waiting litigants.

Having accorded a warm welcome to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at Tuesday’s dinner, the chief justice has thus disappointed many who have been lauding the brave and revolutionary actions initiated by him to uphold the supremacy of law and relaying the seed of an independent judiciary by swimming against the tide in a country like Pakistan, which has been ruled by military and civil dictators for most part of its history.

One, however, wonders if the chief justice’s action is in line with the set procedures governing the role, functions and ethics of judges, a subject which is still being widely debated on the planet.

A peek into the international standards codifying the character of court judges reveals in 1985, the United Nations (UN) had drafted the first universal standards of conduct for the judiciary under the title “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary”.

Just 15 years later, the UN had established a working party of chief justices from different countries. In 2002, their efforts resulted in guidelines called the “Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct”, named after the location of their first meeting.

According to the preamble, these principles were intended to establish standards for ethical conduct of judges. This document presented six central ethical values like independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality and competence along with diligence.

Not fewer than 16 instructions were given under the “propriety” head alone, including whether and to what extent judges may accept gifts, hold public lectures, be a member of a professional association or maintain private contacts.

In America, the Codes of Conduct were issued at the level of the states back in the early 20th Century, followed by a Federal Judicial Code in 1973, though the Judiciary Act was passed long ago in 1789.

In Europe, the European Council took on a leadership role and expressed a first recommendation to its member states on the independence, performance and role of judges in 1994.

Based upon this proposal, the “European Charter on the Statute for Judges” was issued in 1998. This charter contains a catalogue of regulations which aim at ensuring the competence, independence and impartiality that individuals legitimately expect of law courts and judges entrusted with protecting their rights.

While the Bangalore Principles are now used as a model in many countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia, the European associations of judges have taken a more sceptical view. According to them, the Bangalore Principle, too, widely restricted the judges’ civil rights and, too, strictly regulated their private lives.

The European judges have also opposed the idea that breaches of ethical rules could possibly be severely punished. There is a cultural-psychological background to such reservations. The Bangalore Principles are strongly inspired by common law thinking in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, even though a considerable number of judges from Continental Europe, the countries of which normally apply civil law, participated in drafting the rules.

The interest in judicial professional ethics has particularly been aroused in the crisis-prone countries of Latin America, where a true regional code of conduct does not exist yet, but the Statute of Ibero-American Judges of 2001, does at least contain a separate chapter on judicial ethics. Some countries, however, have tackled the issue in concrete terms at the national level. In Mexico, a few years ago, a Federal Code of Judicial Ethics was adopted.

Prior to this, Costa Rica (2000), Guatemala (2001) and Panama (2002) had introduced similar sets of rules and regulations in Central America. In South America, this applies to Chile (2003), Venezuela (2003) and Peru (2004), as well as various Argentinean provinces. Similar reforms are currently being discussed in Paraguay.

Jurists and legal experts have widely been deliberating upon the subject today that if any court system becomes farcical once the citizens lose faith in it, despise its judges and resort to other means to enforce their rights.

They are of the opinion that if judges have lost authority and personal credibility through unethical conduct, they will hardly be able to convince the citizens of the accuracy of any sentences they pass, besides observing in noted law journals that once a judiciary gives itself standards of conduct and makes them available to the public, this generally signifies an important trust-forming measure that spells out in black and white what behaviour citizens may expect of their judges.

Since the time of US President Thomas Jefferson in 1803, supreme courts the world over have been overturning executive actions deemed unconstitutional by them and have found it difficult to directly enforce their rulings because of their reliance on both executive or legislative branches of the government for this purpose, but neither the US executive nor the judiciary there has ever tried to meet up openly to defuse the resultant tensions.

One notable instance of Nona quiescence in world court history was witnessed in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the US Supreme Court’s decision in Worcester versus Georgia case, after President Andrew Jackson had sided with the Georgia courts to defy Chief Justice John Marshall’s orders.

The 1954 judgment regarding desegregation of public schools in Brown versus Board case was also defied in the Southern part of America.

In more recent history, many had feared that President Richard Nixon would refuse to comply with the court’s order in United States vs Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes, but the US judiciary and executive never met to find a ‘way out’.

For those who think there is a heavenly judicial system in place in the US, they should know that American Supreme Court is not immune from political and institutional restraints as lower federal courts and state courts sometimes resist doctrinal innovations, as do the law-enforcement officials.

In addition, there are other mechanisms by which the executive and legislative branches can restrain the US Supreme Court orders. The Congress could increase the number of justices, giving the president power to influence future decisions via appointments (as in Roosevelt’s Court Packing Plan discussed above) and can also pass a legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain cases.

Fully endorse Asma Jahangir, and anxiously awaiting HRCP’s signature campaign for a People’s Charter to make judiciary really transparent and answerable. It’s important to have the Constitution amended in accordance with the Charter of Democracy as enunciated and explained in detail in its Section “A” under the head Constitutional Amendments including clauses/sub-clauses 3 (a), i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi; (a-i), (a-ii), (b), (c), (d) and 4.

Letter to CJ from Naeem Bokhari Posted by Teeth MaestroFebruary 26, 2007
http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2007/02/26/letter-to-cj-from-naeem-bokhari

Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Islamabad
Pakistan

My Lord:
I write this letter as an Officer of the Supreme Court of Pakistan; as an Advocate enrolled in the apex Court since 1984 and in the High Courts since 1972; as an Attorney who has paid more income tax from his earnings in the legal profession than many of my friends, colleagues and seniors elevated to the Bench; and as a stake-holder in the dispensation of justice, intimately and vitally interested in the functioning of the Supreme Court.

Many judges who adorn the Bench in the Supreme Court and the High Court know me over decades, as a person endowed by nature with a pleasant disposition and acceptance of human failings. Towards the courts, my approach has always been of consistent and continuous display of respect and humility. I bow out of conviction, not compulsion. I use the words “My Lords”, because I want to, not because I have to. As an Attorney, I look up to the Court and want to see it on a high pedestal of dignity, compassion and justice, tempered with mercy.

I have seen my Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Hamood-ur-Rahman, Chief Justice Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Chief Justice S. Anwar-ul-Haq, Chief Justice Mohammad Haleem and how the Court functioned under them in the 1970s/1980s.
I witnessed the proceedings for the ouster of Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, became aware that the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, had ‘worked’ on some judges of the Supreme Court and saw the physical assault on the Court.

I was appalled at the manner in which Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan led the Supreme Court and pained at the insinuations against Justice Sheikh Riaz Ahmad, when he was the Chief Justice.

I was horrified by the establishment of a Bench of five judges constituted by Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui to determine whether reduction in the retirement age for judges was constitutional or not. This was clearly designed to block your appointment. I was against the idea of Mr. Amirul Mulk Mengal being made the Chief Justice before you. Within the limits of my influence (which I readily admit to be very limited), I was totally for you to become the Chief Justice. Justice Javed Buttar is aware of my position, as is the Attorney General of Pakistan. The accelerated issue of the notification appointing you the Chief Justice put Justice Siddiqui’s move to rest.
I believed that you were vigorous, capable of lifting up the Supreme Court, creating an espirit-de-corps among your brother judges, restoring the dignity and grandeur of the apex Court, particularly considering the long tenure before you.

Alas this has not come about.

I am not perturbed by your insistence on protocol (despite my belief that the Chief Justice would rise in the eyes of everybody if he walked from his residence to the Supreme Court and hooters, police escort, flags is just fluff, not the substance of an office).

I am mildly amused at your desire to be presented a guard of honour in Peshawar. I am titillated by the appropriation of aMercedes-Benz car or is it cars, the use of the Government of the Punjab’s airplane to offer Fateha in Multan, to Sheikhupura for Fateha on a Government of the Punjab helicopter, to Hyderabad on a Government of the Sind’s plane for attending a High Court function, the huge amount spent in refurbishing the chamber and residence of the Chief Justice, the reservation for yourself of a wing in Supreme Court Judges guest house in Lahore, the permanent occupation by the Supreme Court of the official residence of the Chief Justice of Sind, who per force lives in the basement of his father’s house. As his class fellow in the Government College, Lahore, I can vouch that living in the basement will do him no harm.

I am not perturbed that Dr. Arsalaan (your son) secured 16/100 in the English paper for the Civil Services Examination, that there is a case against him in some court in Baluchistan, that from the Health Department in Baluchistan he has shifted to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), that he has obtained training in the Police Academy, that he reportedly drives a BMW 7-Series car, that there is a complaint against him with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB).

My grievances and protests are different.

I am perturbed that the Supreme Court should issue a clarificatory statement on his behalf. I am perturbed that Justice (Retd.) Wajihuddin Ahmed should be constrained to advise you on television that “people who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others”. I am perturbed that the Chief Justice should summon Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman to his chambers on Dr. Arsalaan’s account.

I am appalled that you announce decisions in Court, while in the written judgment an opposite conclusion is recorded.

In the Petition for leave to appeal filed by Dr. Sher Afghan Niazi, Federal Minister for Parliamentary Affairs (in which Respondent’s Counsels were Mr. Khalid Anwar and Mr. Qadir Saeed), you refused to grant leave in open Court and yet in the written order, leave was granted to Dr. Sher Afghan Niazi.

On 15-2-2007, Mr. Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim complained that in open Court you had accepted his appeal but dismissed the same in the judgement, subsequently recorded.

If Mr. Khalid Anwar, a former Minister of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, and Mr Fakrhuddin, Senior Counsel, are treated in this manner, the fate of lesser known lawyers would certainly be far worse.

My grievances also concern the manner in which the last and highest court of appeal is dispensing justice, under your leadership.

My Lord, the dignity of lawyers is consistently being violated by you. We are treated harshly, rudely, brusquely and nastily. We are not heard. We are not allowed to present our case. There is little scope for advocacy. The words used in the Bar Room for Court No. 1 are “the slaughter house”. We are cowed down by aggression from the Bench, led by you. All we receive from you is arrogance, aggression and belligerence. You also throw away the file, while contemptuously announcing: “This is dismissed”.
Yet this aggression is not for everyone. When Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada appears, your Lordship’s demeanour and appearance is not just sugar and honey. You are obsequious to the point of meekness. So apart from violating our dignity, which the Constitution commands to be inviolable, we suffer discrimination in your Court.
I am not raising the issue of verbal onslaughts and threats to Police Officers and other Civil Servants, who have the misfortune to be summoned, degraded and reminded that “This is the Supreme Court”.

The way in which My Lord conducts proceedings is not conducive to the process of justice. In fact, it obstructs due process and constitutes contempt of the Supreme Court itself.

I am pained at the wide publicity to cases taken up by My Lord in the Supreme Court under the banner of Fundamental Rights. The proceedings before the Supreme Court can conveniently and easily be referred to the District and Sessions Judges. I am further pained by the media coverage of the Supreme Court on the recovery of a female. In the bar room, this is referred to as a “Media Circus”.

My Lord, this communication may anger you and you are in any case prone to get angry in a flash, but do reflect upon it. Perhaps you are not cognizant of what your brother judges feel and say about you.

My Lord, before a rebellion arises among your brother judges (as in the case of Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah), before the Bar stands up collectively and before the entire matter is placed before the Supreme Judicial Council, there may be time to change and make amends.

I hope you have the wisdom and courage to make these amends and restore serenity, calm, compassion, patience and justice tempered with mercy to my Supreme Court.
My Lord, we all live in the womb of time and are judged, both by the present and by history. The judgement about you, being rendered in the present, is adverse in the extreme.

Yours faithfully,
NAEEM BOKHARI
Advocate
Supreme Court of
Pakistan
Islamabad, Pakistan

Every person in pakistan has its price whether it is Aitzaz Ahsan , Asama Jahagir or Kurd ,and corrupt Zadari knowns how to buy.