ISLAMABAD, March 21: The Supreme Court on Saturday expanded on the reasons why it had disqualified the Sharif brothers from electoral politics and observed that petitioners and their counsel had attempted to hinder the “safe sailing of the ship of the great judicial institution by making a hole in it and to let it sink”.

On Feb 25, the Supreme Court, through a short order, had disqualified the Sharif brothers from contesting any election or holding public office.

The Supreme Court released three separate detailed judgments.

Justice Sheikh Hakim Ali gave reasons for disqualification of PML-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif and Justice Mohammad Moosa K. Leghari, who headed the bench, dealt with disqualification of Shahbaz Sharif and the petition filed by Syed Khurram Shah.

Justice Hakim Ali observed that by not contesting the stigma of disqualification, Nawaz Sharif was either shy, nervous to face the case or did not want to become a candidate, after submission of nomination papers for a by-election.

The judge separately dealt with all issues raised during the hearing, including an application requesting the judges to recuse themselves from the bench, allegations of PCO judges, bias and locus standi.

On PCO judges, Justice Hakim Ali said it was a conspiracy of the highest and gravest nature, hatched by some vested interests to destroy the entire judicial fabric of this highest judicial institution of this country, for their own interest and purpose.

The judgment said: “It is being bred to get appointed judges of their own choice and interest, in the offices of judges of superior courts, by eliminating the present judges even whose impartiality and honesty might be above board.

“This rule of politics, to divide and rule is being played and brought into this realm of judicial institution, to cause disturbance into peaceful, harmonious working and smooth running of this institution, by raising prejudices and differences amongst the judges and by procreating two factions in the judiciary, which is most harmful and sinful act of the petitioners.

“All the judges sitting in this court are equal, respectful and revered and brother judges, amongst whom no distinction and discrimination of belonging to one or the other group can be allowed and permitted by any of the judges of this court to be made and raised at this stage and thereafter.

“All the judges having taken oath under the present constitution, a few of them cannot be given preference by the petitioners or their counsel over or against the others. On this basis, unity amongst the judges has been attempted to be tarnished and torn into pieces through these baseless, frivolous and unfounded premises particularly when it has already been ruled out in Tikka Iqbal Mohammad Khan’s case (validation of November 3, 2007, emergency) and, thereafter, by 17 judges in review jurisdiction.

“These PCO judges have never been a hurdle or obstacle in the campaign launched for the restoration of those brother judges who either declined to take oath or were not administered the same.

“The example has been set up by these PCO judges, when they welcomed those judges to take their previous positions in the judicial system. If one set of judges had stood up for upholding the flag of independence of judiciary, the other was defending the fort of judiciary from being intruded from the aliens to this complexity of judicial system, although task was different but the goal was one.

“This magnificent building of justice is constructed upon the belief of its honesty and sanctity. If this image is damaged, then no one will be ready to accept the judgments which are delivered by these judicial institutions. Anarchy and chaos would prevail within the citizens of the country.

“When judgments of courts are not accepted, submission and surrender to it is not performed, in that event, street and mob justice is invited, to become the rule of the day.

“If a judge is corrupt, his removal can be attempted through lawful means as prescribed by law. But to malign judges, to impute dishonesty and to utter allegation of their being faithless, and law breakers are the words of gravest contempt. The use of derogatory language for the judiciary is a conspiracy to destroy the sacred temple of justice, which would tumble down its structure and there would be none in that event, to reconstruct it.

“It must be kept in mind that the judges of this court cannot yield to any temptation and allurement. They are the final adjudicators of the law of the land and their wrong interpretation of law has got far-reaching repercussions on the whole set-up and judicial system, as they are minarets of law for the subordinate judiciary to follow it in their judicial cases. Their age, judicial experience and training does not allow them to decide the case without keeping its merits in mind.”

Justice Moosa K. Leghari while deciding the disqualification of Shahbaz Sharif held that by moving a petition to defend the former chief minister, the Punjab chief secretary overstepped his authority in overzealous manner and pushed the province to defend the case of the then sitting chief minister who himself ‘intentionally’ opted to remain out of the court and decided not to defend his case, instead remained busy in humiliating the judiciary.

He observed: “There was a plea of initiating contempt proceedings against Punjab Chief Secretary Javed Mehmood. However, at this juncture we consider it proper to withhold the commencement of contempt proceedings.

“In any case, the act of the chief secretary on the face of it appears to be subversive of discipline constituting misconduct under the Service Laws. Be that as it may we leave the matter open to be dealt with by the competent authority.”
Tags: