Full Proceedings of Supreme Court on the Petition of Qazi Faez Isa






During the hearing in the petition of Justice Faez Isa, the full court bench suggested to the public prosecutor that action should be taken in the FBR instead of reference and if the FBR reaches any conclusion, the government should can approuch  to the Supreme Judicial Court on that basis.   The court observed that there were errors in the presidential reference filed.  On this, Forough Naseem said that he would inform the court tomorrow after consulting the government.

 Hearing details

It has been more than five days since the government counsel Barrister Forough Naseem argued in the hearing on the petition of Justice Qazi Faiz Issa against the presidential reference but the federal government has not yet answered the basic questions raised by the court. The court gave Forough Naseem one day to complete his arguments.

The key questions relate to the method used to gather evidence, the method used to trace assets abroad, the alleged malice behind the reference, the espionage  of the judge and his family, and the serious campaign against the judge.

During the hearing, Justice Umar Ata Bandial remarked that we agree with the accountability of the judges. The petitioner has alleged that the evidence was collected in a malicious and illegal manner.  Yes, if the reference proves malicious, the case may be dismissed.

He said there were still several flaws in the reference, the ownership of the London properties was recognized, the question in the lawsuit was about the purchase of the property, the petitioner did not even refuse to disclose the purchase of the property resources while the petitioner wanted that  Action should be taken as per law, FBR issued notices under sections 116 and 114, the matter should also go to the Judicial Council, if there is no malice, the council can take action.

He asked Forough Naseem to give evidence on maliciousness and gathering evidence today. We are aware of our responsibilities. It may be that the FBR will be allowed to decide the matter first. If the decision is against the wife then  Then go to the Judicial Council.

Justice Faisal Arab said that no action can be taken against any judge except the council while Justice Sajjad Ali Shah said that if the sources of purchase of properties are mentioned in the FBR, then they should return to the council and the law should take its course.  Let's do  Justice Faisal Arab said that Mr. Forough Naseem should think about the issue of action in FBR and tell him what to do after the break.

Forough Naseem said that in the eyes of the court, this could be a better option. The Judicial Council has disciplinary action against judges, to which Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that the disciplinary action would depend on another action.  How can there be independent action in this case, in this situation even the action of regulation will not be beneficial.

Justice Omar Ata Bandial inquired that according to him, the facility of law is available to the common man and the judges do not have this facility as per the law.

Forough Naseem took the position that under the Service of Pakistan, the wife is not separated from the husband. Even if the FBR is given the power to decide, what will be the time frame?

Justice Omar Ata Bandial remarked that the Income Tax may say that the sources are correct, the Judicial Council may or may not agree with the decision of the Tax Authority, it remains to be seen whether the purchase of property is halal or otherwise.  We have full confidence in the Judicial Council.

 Forough Naseem said that give me time to consult with the Prime Minister and the President, then Justice Omar Ata Bandial said that let's give your arguments now.

 Forough Naseem argued that under the Service of Pakistan, no one could refuse to respond to his wife's properties.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that if a government employee is unable to get information from his wife, then what will happen in such a case.  Forough Naseem replied that if a government employee made an excuse for his wife, he would be sent to jail. The judge did not say that my wife was not providing me information.

 Justice Yahya Afridi remarked that if the husband could not get the record from the FBR, then his hands were tied.

 Justice Maqbool Baqir remarked that the income tax machinery was used, which is a legal procedure.

 Forough Naseem took the position that if the details of assets were sought from the public servant, he could not give an excuse for income tax. Ask the wife when asked by the public servant.  Tax disciplinary action must be answered.

Forough Naseem said that the tax record of the wife was not sought by the government, the tax record was sought from the FBR by the Judicial Council on which Justice Yahya Afridi said that Fazil Vakil Sahib should not do so, the first letter to the FBR from the government.  

 "As a Member of Parliament, I will be disqualified if I do not provide details of my wife's assets," Forough Naseem said.

 Justice Omar Ata Bandial said that there is little time to talk long, you should read section 216 of the Income Tax Act.

 Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned whether the husband could directly ask for his wife's tax record from the FBR.  "I think the husband can ask for a record," Forough Naseem said.

 Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said, "I don't think you can tell the law. If the wife refuses to give information, then how will the husband get the tax record."

 Justice Yahya Afridi questioned how the FBR and ARU got the information before the reference came.

 Justice Maqbool Baqir remarked that the issue of ARU unit tax could be referred to the FBR.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah questioned how the ARU unit was formed, the Prime Minister can only form a ministry.  Justice Omar Ata Bandial inquired as to what the ARU unit was and how the information was obtained. You should first seek instructions from the Prime Minister or the President on the FBR issue.

 Forough Naseem said that if the matter is left to the FBR, how much time will be given to the tax authority.  Justice Omar Ata Bandial remarked that the holidays have started and he would ask the FBR to decide on the matter during the holidays.

 Forough Naseem said that there are no flaws in our reference, then Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that you should take instructions and if the instructions are negative then give arguments.

 Justice Maqbool Baqir remarked that the question is whether the judges are responsible for the wife's property.

 Forough Naseem said that this is not a question. Article 209 is a very serious matter. Waheed Dogar's complaint could not be raised and sent to the council.

 Justice Faisal Arab remarked that there is no allegation of malice against the President in this case, the President also has no power of inquiry, there is no content of corruption in the reference, it is constitutional opinion for the President to form his own opinion.

 "We have received information that there are no sources of purchase of properties. The government has forwarded the information to the Judicial Council. It is not true that there was no record before the President," Forough Naseem said.  After review, the council issued a show cause notice.

 Justice Mansoor Ali Shah observed that the court is not bound by the show cause notice, the question is that the sources were asked from the judge without asking the wife, show the law that the judge is bound to respond to the wife's assets.

 "This is a case in which we have to think ahead, it will not happen tomorrow and there will be no judges," Forough Naseem said.

 Justice Maqbool Baqir questioned whether the President has the power to review the conduct of a judge.

 Forough Naseem said that the president plays the role of executive under Article 209. However, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah observed that the opinion of the president is important. If the president is an extension of the executive, then what is the need for the president to form an opinion on the reference?  Required.

 Forough Naseem argued that I respectfully say that I do not agree with your question, listen to me on this question, if your question is considered correct, then the importance of Article 48 is lost.

 Justice Umar Ata Bandial said that under Article 48 One, the President has not been made a rubber stamp, the President can use his mind, he will write this in the decision, we have a shortage of time, you have to give arguments till Thursday.


 Asking for time till tomorrow for consultation on the issue of reference, Forough Naseem said, "Let me give you arguments today. I will reply tomorrow to the option given by the court."

 When the hearing began after the break, Forough Naseem explained before the arguments that the hands of the government were perfectly clean.  He assisted the court that no decision was required on the FBR case, sought clarification from anyone on concealment of assets, no petition before the Judicial Council, concealment of assets in Panama and Khawaja Asif cases.  A writ petition was filed.

Justice Maqbool Baqir remarked that the question under which law the council could ask the judge for the wife's property.

 During the hearing, Forough Naseem said that whether the negative campaign is against us or against the petitioner, it is reprehensible. The property belongs to the family of Justice Faiz Issa. We are on trial. We go to the press and deny the allegations leveled against us.  Can't even, I can't tell what situation I'm going through.

On this, Justice Maqbool Baqir said that the lawyer should not say such a thing, in the same way guess what punishment the judges will be going through.  We all know what was said in the press conferences before the presidential reference was filed. If we go this way, the country will deteriorate.

Forough Naseem said that I did not say anything against Justice Qazi Faiz Issa but he called me a tout, these are the words of the Supreme Court Judge (Justice Qazi Faiz Issa) about me, to which Justice Umar Ata Bandial replied.  He said that they should not talk about revenge.  He quoted a verse from the Qur'an and urged patience.

 "If I were a judge, I would know the financial affairs of my wife and children. It is the legal responsibility of a judge to know the financial affairs of his family," Naseem said at the hearing.

Justice Maqbool Baqir asked where it is written that it is the legal responsibility of the judge.  So far you have not been able to tell us the relevant law, you should try to understand what I want to say, so far we are trying to understand.

Forough Naseem said that a judge who cannot disclose his and his family's assets, how can he fulfill the trust of the people, such a person should not remain in his post, public servant all over the world to disclose his and his family's assets.  The record is absolutely silent on how the judge's wife built the properties, the judge is bound by the code of conduct inside and outside the court, we are not behind the British, we also have many precedents, Arsalan Iftikhar case is before you, the British did not give so much freedom to their own wives, otherwise the whole system will collapse, should the wife of a public servant be given free rein to make money by showing self-sufficiency.

Forough Naseem said that the judge's response to the council's question would increase the confidence of the judiciary. The civil servant is not accountable to the self-sufficient wife, so the law will have to be differentiated. The rest of the civil servants should explain the wife's property.  The civil servant says I will not respond to his wife's property.

Responding in the affirmative, Forough Naseem said that the council can call his wife and ask her to come and tell him where the money came from and how the money went out.  On this, Justice Qazi Amin said that Forough Naseem was enough, I would demand not to give such examples which are insulting, refrain from comparing the judge's wife with any other incident.

Justice Maqbool Baqir remarked that your argument seems legendary that the property of the judge's wife and children should be considered as the property of the judge.

Referring to the laws, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah told the government counsel that the laws of corporate bodies you are reading are very old, to which Forough Naseem said that he would also read the new laws but what he wanted to request  Understand, when a person is a public servant, under the rule of proximity, he is responsible to his close ones, the court should link it with the judge's code of conduct.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that the Code of Conduct came in 1967 and the corporate laws are from 1930. If there is no consistency, should we understand that our Code of Conduct is flawed?  "I'm talking about the 2009 code of conduct," Forough Naseem said.

Justice Muneeb Akhtar said that it is not new but it is old and has only been reprinted.  "What does the corporate body's code of conduct have to do with our code of conduct?" He asked.

Justice Maqbool Baqir said that we had said earlier that we should not be abused.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said that even if your argument is accepted that the Supreme Court is a corporate body, then where it is written, its director is bound to disclose the assets of the wife. The role of proximity is only in your arguments and not anywhere.

Addressing the government's counsel, Justice Omar Ata Bandial remarked that "we are still at the same point where we started. You have yet to answer important judicial questions. You have to collect evidence illegally."  But now you have to give arguments, you have to go to court on the point of malice, you also have to explain what method was used to gather evidence, respond to allegations such as espionage and serious campaign by the judge and his family.  ۔

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah also asked to answer the question as to which agency had collected evidence for the search of foreign property.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial told Forough Naseem that tomorrow is the last day for him to give arguments.

 The hearing of the case was adjourned till tomorrow.

 

Post a Comment

0 Comments