Justice Faez Isa case: Judges accountable, not above law, says SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Friday observed that superior court judges were not above the law and were more accountable than anyone, but they should be treated in accordance with the law.

A 10-member full court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, resumed hearing on a set of petitions challenging the presidential reference filed against Justice Qazi Faez Isa for allegedly not disclosing his foreign properties in his wealth returns.

The other members of the bench included Justice Maqbool Baqir, Justice Manzoor Ahmed Malik, Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

The court again asked the federation’s counsel to answer the questions raised by the petitioner judge about malice as well as covert surveillance and abstain from unnecessary arguments.

Justice Maqbool Baqir clarified that the Supreme Court had never said that the superior court judges were above the law adding that judges were more accountable than anyone else but they should be dealt with in accordance with the law.

The judge said it was a wrong impression that a judge could not be held accountable adding that judges were answerable but they should be treated in accordance with the law.

“Today I am conveying on behalf of brother judges that we are not above the law, but we should be treated in accordance with the law as well”, Justice Maqbool Baqir remarked. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked the federation counsel whether women as citizen of the country had no rights and whether they could not acquire separate properties.

“How this jump was made that if a husband is a judge of the Supreme Court then he will be required to disclose the properties of his spouse?” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah asked Farogh Naseem. He further asked whether a husband could not get the pension of his judge spouse.

Farogh Naseem, however, reiterated that as there were disciplinary proceedings in the Supreme Judicial Council against the petitioner judge, he was required to answer about his spouse’s properties. He further contended that there were no proceedings of tax matter before the Supreme Judicial Council.

He further submitted that apart from other maters raised in the reference, the point of money trail had also been raised. Justice Maqbool Baqir, however, told the federation counsel that when he will be able to establish that the instant London properties were purchased from the income of the petitioner’s judge, then the question of money trail would arise.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that the prime question was that as to how a judge was answerable for the act of his spouse.

Justice Maqbool Baqir observed that there were educated women, who were financially independent adding that often financially independent women do not know about the second marriage of their husbands.

The remarks of Justice Baqir drew laughter in the courtroom at which Justice Bandial immediately made it clear that he said it on a lighter note.

Meanwhile, Farogh Naseem submitted before the court that he would argue on the point of malice, covert surveillance as well as collection of material, evidence by the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) on the nest date of hearing at which the court adjourned the hearing until Monday, June 15.