ISLAMABAD:
Judges of the Superior Courts have been given conditional permission to participate in social, political and diplomatic functions with the permission of the relevant Chief Justice. The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) at its meeting on 11 June approved changes to the Code of Conduct for Judges.
Last October, the SJC unanimously approved a new code of conduct under which superior court judges were completely barred from presiding over or participating in social, cultural, political or diplomatic functions.
However, two SJC members, namely Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar, had raised strong objections to the approval of the amended code, warning that the changes undermined judicial independence and centralized authority and could be misused to silence dissenting judges.
Shortly after the approval of the amended Judicial Code of Conduct, the 26th Constitutional Amendment was tabled in Parliament for approval in November, and Supreme Court judges failed to secure its constitutional jurisdiction.
Now the SJC has approved new amendments under which judges from superior courts will be allowed to participate in political and diplomatic functions with the permission of the relevant chief justice. It is not clear whether the “relevant Chief Justice” will also require permission to attend such functions.
Likewise, executive influence in the appointment of chief justices of the superior courts cannot be ruled out. Some outspoken judges have also complained about their chief justices regarding allocation of cases as well as other administrative issues.
Chief Justices have the power to sanction or cancel the leave of judges. Legal experts believe that the discretionary powers of chief justices should be regulated.
Commenting on the amendment to the code of conduct, Abdul Moiz Jaferii stated that Justices Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah are no longer members of the SJC and therefore the rules have been relaxed regarding public speaking.
Likewise, the SJC approved the inclusion of “Federal Constitutional Court” in the title of the Code. The new title is: “Code of Conduct for Judges of the Federal Constitutional Court (FFC), the Supreme Court (SC) and the High Courts.”
The SJC has also amended para. 2 and 3 of Article XV.
According to the amended article, in case of external influence, judges must immediately inform in writing the Chief Justice of the relevant Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) and the Chief Justice of the FCC or SC if he is not the CJP, and the two Chief Justices each of the FCC and SC through the respective Registrars.
In the case of the FCC or SC, the judge must immediately inform – in writing – the Chief Justice and the four senior judges of the relevant court through the respective registrars.
The Supreme Court of Appeal brings the case before a committee of three judges within two days of receiving the report. The committee decides on the matter within 14 weeks.
If the case is referred for judicial decision, it should be decided as early as possible, observing the principles of due process and fair trial.
If the Chief Justice or the Committee, in the case of a High Court, fails to respond within the stipulated time frame, the FCC’s forum or SC, which was informed by the judge, shall take up the matter.
Last year, the SJC amended Article V of the Code, which states that a judge may not engage in any public controversy – by way of speech, writing, debate or comment – in any forum, especially on political issues, even if such issues involve a question of law.
“He must not interact with the media, especially on topics that may provoke public debate or adversely affect institutional collegiality and discipline,” it said.
Lawyer Faisal Siddiqi said the new Article V was nothing short of gagging judges by curtailing their freedom of expression. “How can such judges ever protect citizens’ free speech?” he asked.
Siddiqi further stated that the 26th Amendment, the furlough policy and the new Article V all serve a similar purpose – “to control and silence independent judges.”
Another lawyer stated that the SJC and the Code of Conduct have proven ineffective when it comes to the majority of judges who violate their oath while serving the interests of the executive branch.
“Corruption, nepotism and breach of judicial oath are tolerated, accepted and even normalized for those willing to serve their masters,” he said.
