ISLAMABAD: The federal government has pleaded before the Supreme Court that its April 26 majority judgement in the Justice Qazi Faez Isa review case should not be left in the field for being manifestly and patently unjust and against the public interest and public good which defeats the judicial accountability.

The July 8 appeal against the May 25 decision of the SC registrar office to refuse to entertain an unheard of legal remedy — curative review petition — in the Justice Qazi Faez Isa case, also refers to the contents of the curative review petition which contends that the majority judgement of the Supreme Court is erroneous, in breach of natural justice and a result of actual bias and otherwise unlawful, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction.

On April 26, the Supreme Court by a majority of six to four had overturned its majority ruling of June 19 last year which had ordered an investigation by the tax authorities into three foreign properties in the name of the wife and children of Justice Isa.

Consequently, the exercise conducted by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) was rendered null and void since the fresh order, which came on a set of review petitions, recalled and set aside the June 19 verdict.

Says the ruling enables judges to evade accountability

Through the appeal, the government has requested the apex court to set aside the registrar office’s objections to the curative review petition. The appeal has been filed on behalf of President Dr Arif Alvi, the federal government through the law secretary, Prime Minister Imran Khan, Law Minister Dr Farogh Naseem, Adviser to the PM on Accountability Shahzad Akbar and legal expert of the Assets Recovery Unit Zia-ul-Mustafa Nasim.

The appeal states that the April 26 majority judgement has sufficiently closed the doors of the judicial accountability in general and the accountability of Justice Isa in respect of the allegations and information which has come on record besides it is also against the principles of judicial independence and the fundamental rights of the “judged” by the people at large with regard to access to justice and the right to life.

The majority judgement has also diluted the standards of judicial accountability rather a shield has been provided to the judges of the superior courts to hide behind the doctrine of judicial independence only to evade judicial accountability, the appeal argues.

The concept of judicial independence is not primarily meant for the benefit of individual judges but the doctrine of judicial independence is meant for the benefit of the judged and for securing the interests, rights and benefits of the entire society, it says.

The majority judgement is also against the Islamic and modern jurisprudence and also against the high ethical and moral principles envisaged in the Code of Conduct for judges of the superior courts, the appeal says.

The majority judgement also fails to emphasize that the duty of the officials, judges, Qazis and public servants to explain their finances and assets owes its genesis to our religion and glorious heritage, apart from being fully backed by modern jurisprudence and that the assets and finances of close relatives of public servants, officials, judges, Qazis etc. such as their spouses and dependent children are also required to be explained, the appeal emphasises.

The majority judgement has exempted a judge’s wife, whether independent or not, and his dependent children from scrutiny of their assets and finances, the appeal argues, adding that it has also granted exemption to judges of the superior courts, particularly Justice Isa, from explaining the foreign assets in the names of his wife and children, who have not been able to give any justification with regard to the sources from which three London properties were acquired, it contends.

The appeal alleges that Justice Isa was sufficiently connected with the foreign currency bank account of his wife through which the London properties were funded.

The appeal also questions the SC registrar office’s objection that scandalous language was used in the curative review petition, saying no such language was used.

Published in Dawn, July 11th, 2021