ISLAMABAD, Dec 11: On the last day of his eight-year tenure on Wednesday, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry took up the Balochistan missing persons’ case and handed down an order. The proceedings of the case saw a verbal clash between a counsel and the bench.

Heading a three-judge Supreme Court bench which had issued a contempt notice to Inspector General of Frontier Corps Balochistan Maj Gen Ijaz Shahid, the chief justice ordered that the next-in-command in the force be immediately appointed in place of the FC chief who was indisposed and admitted to the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology.

When Brigadier Khalid Saleem, who is at present heading the force, tried to explain that none of the missing persons was in the FC custody, the court said that without a proper notification by the interior ministry about his charge he could not be considered to be legally holding the command.

After the notification, the order said, the acting FC chief would ensure that the FC personnel allegedly involved in enforced disappearances appeared before DIG of Balochistan Crime Investigation Department Imtiaz Ahmed Shah in compliance with the earlier order.

It said the new FC chief, along with the provincial police and other law-enforcement agencies, would also ensure recovery of the missing persons, including Advocate Mir Ahmed Marwani who had been picked up from Khuzdar in Balochistan.

The new FC chief, the Balochistan chief secretary and the inspector general of police are required to appear before the Supreme Court on Dec 17 along with reports on progress in recovery of the missing persons.

The court said that since former FC chief Obaidullah Khattak had earlier given an undertaking in the court, all those who had affixed their signatures on the commitment to recover the missing persons would also appear before it to explain whether they had met the commitment.

The court regretted that despite protests by relatives of the missing persons, no-one took practical steps to redress their grievances. This is evident from the attitude of law-enforcement agencies as well as elected representatives who had promised to enforce fundamental rights in their election campaigns.

“Similar is the position of the federal government, the prime minister and his cabinet as well as the elected representatives, particularly from Balochistan, despite the fact that they are aware of the miseries of the Baloch people,” the court said.

It observed that it was a responsibility of the executive authorities discharging functions under the constitution to enforce fundamental rights. The court regretted that there had been a hue and cry for many years and relatives of the missing persons were continuously holding camps in Quetta and even marched to Karachi on foot with their children, women and the elderly demanding their recovery.

ACRIMONY: At the outset of the proceedings an exchange of words took place between the bench and Advocate Irfan Qadir, representing FC chief Maj Gen Ijaz Shahid.

When Mr Qadir, a former attorney general, insisted that he should be heard, the court said that the right of audience could not be granted until the FC chief himself appeared to face the contempt charge.

He quoted a headline in a section of the press that a “political superstar is born” and said that if it was true he would not like to leave his client at the mercy of the superstar. And if it was wrong, he said, the court should proceed against the media house under Section 8 of the Contempt of the Court Ordinance 2003 so that such stories were not published again.

The court asked the counsel not to force it to take strict action against him. Otherwise, it warned, he could be charged for committing contempt at the face of the court under the Supreme Court Rules which could entail suspension or permanent cancellation of his licence to practice in the Supreme Court.

Mr Qadir said he had not committed any contempt and all that he wanted was an action against the newspaper. He alleged that the bench was sitting with a mindset and getting personal.

The court said it was exercising restraint and asked the counsel not to be loud in the court. Now it has become a question of the dignity of the court.

At this Attorney General Muneer A. Malik stepped in to request the court to exercise judicial restraint since Mr Qadir was his predecessor.

The chief justice observed that the power to suspend a licence could be exercised by the chief justice straightaway.

But the counsel said the court could not go ahead or even revoke his licence without hearing him and emphasised that the Supreme Court rules were subservient to Article 10-A of the Constitution which ensures fair trial.

But despite the expectation after intervention by the attorney general, Mr Qadir did not offer any remorse or apology, but only demanded fair trial from the bench.

Detainees’ death: In its Tuesday’s judgment in the Adiyala Jail detainees case, the Supreme Court had declared that the death of four detainees during custody could not be proved to have been caused by torture, thus their death should be considered as natural.

The judgment said: “Regarding the death of the 4 detainees, the respondents No. 2 to 4 with their reply (CMA No. 487 of 2012) have attached their death certificates which show that Syed Abdus Saboor expired on 20.01.2011 in LRH due to cardio pulmonary arrest, respiratory distress. Tehseenullah expired on 17.12.2011 in LRH due to cardio pulmonary arrest. Said Arab expired on 18.12.2011 in LRH due to cardio pulmonary arrest, secondary to anaemia and pancyctopaeshia. Muhammad Aamir alias Khalid expired on 13.08.2011 due to acute renal failure and acute gastroenteritis.”