ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court on Thursday questioned how can a recommendation based on “false legal advice” be submitted versus its judges as the full- court bench resumed hearing in the governmental recommendation versus Justice Qazi Faez Isa which implicates the judge of hiding his overseas properties.

As the hearing went underway, Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that the cash Laundering (Modification) Act, which ended up being law in 2015, can not be used to a case that go back to 2013.

” How can the president and prime minister authorize a recommendation based on ‘false legal advice’, Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked.

“[We are] informing you leniently that this [legal] error can have severe ramifications.”

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah kept in mind that the federal government’s counsel likewise stopped working to describe from where does the Assets Recovery System (ARU) draws its authority to concern a judge.

Justice Bandial explained that the case can not be categorised under Post 209 of the Constitution which details the functions of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). To which, Lawyer Farigh Naseem reacted: “Yes, you are absolutely right, but the SJC has issued a show-cause notice.”

The district attorney stated that the federal government just forwarded the confirmed details to the SJC to carry out a probe into the matter.

Justice Shah observed that the court’s concern inquiring on the variety of public office holders dealing with legal action on a comparable ground went unanswered. Naseem responded that he has actually made a note of the concern.

GOVERNMENTAL REFERRAL:

The federal government in May in 2015 submitted different recommendations with the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) versus 2 Supreme Court judges, Justice Isa and Justice Karim Khan Agha, implicating the 2 judges of hiding their properties and advise action versus them under Post 209 of the Constitution.

According to Article 209, if the SJC discovers the judge to be “incapable of performing the duties of his office or has been guilty of misconduct”, the president might eliminate the stated judge from office.

Consequently in August, Justice Isa approached the peak court and requested it to form a full- court bench consisting of all qualified judges to hear his petition versus the recommendation while implicating then primary justice of Pakistan Asif Saeed Khosa of “showing personal bias against him”.

He had actually argued that a judicial precedent for making up a bench consisting of the full court is currently available in former chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry vs the president of Pakistan through secretary and others.

Later On in September, he moved another petition making a comparable demand. The judge was of the view that matters told in accompanying civil various application dated August 26– “which may for the sake of brevity be read as a part hereof”– shows the need for hearing by such a full- court bench.

“The petition also raises a number of important constitutional questions, including that of the independence of the judiciary, the formation of an independent opinion by the president, obtaining federal cabinet’s approval and other vital issues of surveillance, and the manner and method of collecting evidence against a judge of the Supreme Court and his family,” he had actually stated.

The post SC wonders if govt can prosecute a judge on ‘false’ legal advice appeared first on World Weekly News.