<\/p>\n
Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Wednesday asked if the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) was sincere with the country as the Supreme Court took up a set of petitions<\/a> against the Feb 6, 2019 judgement<\/a> in the Faizabad dharna<\/em> case.<\/p>\n A three-member Supreme Court bench comprising the CJP, Justice Aminuddin Khan and Justice Athar Minallah heard challenges to the ruling pertaining to the Faizabad sit-in<\/a>.<\/p>\n Authored by Justice Isa years before he took oath as the chief justice, the searing judgement had instructed the defence ministry and the tri-services chiefs to penalise personnel under their command who were found to have violated their oath.<\/p>\n It had also directed the federal government to monitor those advocating hate, extremism and terrorism and prosecute them in accordance with the law.<\/p>\n Adverse observations were also made against several government departments for causing inconvenience<\/a> to the public as the 20-day sit-in paralysed life in both Islamabad and Rawalpindi.<\/p>\n Pleas were subsequently moved<\/a> against the verdict by the Ministry of Defence, the Intelligence Bureau, the PTI, Pemra, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), the Mutta\u00adhida Qaumi Movement (MQM), Rashid and Ijazul Haq.<\/p>\n However, most of the petitioners \u2014 including the government, IB, Pemra and PTI \u2014 withdrew their pleas, prompting the CJP to ask<\/a> \u201cwhy is everyone so afraid to speak the truth\u201d.<\/p>\n At the last hearing, the SC had sought fresh disclosures<\/a> from anyone regarding the protest by a religious group that had brought the capital and the garrison city to a grinding halt for 20 days.<\/p>\n Justice Isa had said anybody who was affected by the protest, could approach the apex court to submit affidavits revealing new information but in writing.<\/p>\n In response, former Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) chairman Absar Alam submitted a statement<\/a> in the SC a day earlier wherein he pointed fingers at a former head and officers of an intelligence agency for \u201cmanipulation\u201d of TV news channels and explained the dire consequences of not acceding to their instructions.<\/p>\n He claimed that then ISI Director General Major General Faiz and\/or his subordinates controlled the policies of TV channels through unlawful means by changing their numbers and moving them to the tail end of cable networks if they refused to follow the instructions.<\/p>\n Today, the bench heard arguments from Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan, Absar Alam, the Election Commission of Pakistan and Pemra.<\/p>\n In an order announced later in the day, the court dismissed review pleas filed by the IB, PTI, the defence ministry, MQM and Ijazul Haq on grounds of withdrawal. It also issued notices to Sheikh Rashid over failure to appear in court and adjourned the hearing till Nov 15.<\/p>\n During the hearing today, Justice Isa said he had some questions regarding Alam\u2019s note submitted to the SC yesterday. \u201cYou said there are some rebellious elements in the media,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Alam responded that \u201cpeople of intelligence agencies\u201d used to reach out to cable operators. \u201cA Pemra member had received a call which was recorded,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n When asked about the name of the caller, Alam said he could not confirm it because people often called with fake identities. He went on to say that there were petitions against him in three high courts.<\/p>\n \u201cI was removed as Pemra chairman by the Lahore High Court on Dec 18. You said to bring the truth and so I did,\u201d Alam said. \u201cIt was known among journalists that whoever filed a petition against me in the LHC is a person of the agencies,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Alam further recalled that he was given verbal orders to sack Najam Sethi after the latter revealed on a talk show that institutional corruption was taking place. \u201cI was removed for this reason,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n Alam also said that he had written a letter to the ex-army chief after he had received a call.<\/p>\n \u201cIf I were the prime minister at that time, I would have held an inquiry or told Pemra to take action,\u201d the CJP said here.<\/p>\n At one point, Justice Minallah mentioned that the incumbent Pemra chief said there was no pressure on him, to which Alam said Baig was a \u201cfortunate person\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cIf tomorrow the government forms a commission, will you record your statement?\u201d Justice Isa asked. Alam swore that he would take all the names before the commission.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the chief justice said the committee should also call those who were accused and give them a chance for cross-examination.<\/p>\n At the outset of the hearing, AGP Awan read out the order of the previous hearing.<\/p>\n Referring to Alan\u2019s note, CJP Isa noted that the former Pemra chairman had levelled \u201cserious allegations\u201d on the defence ministry and inquired if the government still wanted to withdraw its review petition.<\/p>\n \u201cIf Absar Alam\u2019s accusations are true, then this matter is linked to you,\u201d he told the AGP.<\/p>\n For his part, Awan said a fact-finding committee had been constituted<\/a> on Oct 19 and then read out the notification regarding the same. The three-member committee is responsible for ensuring compliance with directions included in the 2019 judgement.<\/p>\n On Justice Isa\u2019s question regarding who the committee would report to, the AGP said it would submit the findings to the defence ministry. \u201cThe report will then be presented in the SC,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n However, the chief justice highlighted that the exercise was an \u201ceyewash\u201d and the \u201creal thing\u201d was missing from it. \u201cWhen everyone is withdrawing their review petitions, the terms of reference of the committee are synonymous to dust in the eyes.\u201d<\/p>\n At one point, Justice Minallah asked whether what was happening in the country today was as per the Constitution while CJP Isa said the government was not qualified to handle the matter.<\/p>\n \u201cA person is imported from abroad and he paralyses the entire country,\u201d the top judge remarked.<\/p>\n He further stated that the court wanted to know who was the mastermind of the Faizabad dharna<\/em>. \u201cYou have broadened the TORs so much that everyone will be acquitted,\u201d Justice Isa said, lamenting that losses in billions were incurred but the government does not care.<\/p>\n He also highlighted that the TORs of the fact-finding committee did not mention the exact incident being probed. \u201cOur job is to order and your job is to implement,\u201d the chief justice said.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Justice Minallah asked who had constituted the committee to which the AGP replied that the federal government had formed it.<\/p>\n \u201cWas the approval of the federal cabinet taken? Was this committee formed under the Inquiry Commission Act?\u201d the judge asked. Here, Justice Isa said that if this was not so, then the notification of the commission was a mere piece of paper.<\/p>\n \u201cThis committee too is illegal,\u201d the CJP stated and then asked why the inquiry was not conducted under the Inquiry Commission Act. \u201cLet\u2019s suppose that the committee summons Absar Alam but he doesn\u2019t show up. What will you do then?\u201d he asked.<\/p>\n A committee formed under the Inquiry Commission Act has powers and all institutions are bound to cooperate with it, the chief justice pointed out. \u201cNo one will appear before your committee,\u201d he told the AGP.<\/p>\n At that, Awan assured the court that the government would work on the matter.<\/p>\n Justice Minallah emphasised that the supremacy of the Constitution must be ensured at any cost. CJP Isa remarked that when one person gets affected, it makes others mindful of the consequences of doing something wrong.<\/p>\n The chief justice further stressed that the inquiry should also reveal why everyone appealed the 2019 verdict.<\/p>\n \u201cYou have an opportunity to get the inquiry done from a person who respects the Constitution,\u201d Justice Minallah said while Justice Isa said it was up to the government to choose whoever they wanted to conduct the probe.<\/p>\n \u201cAs per Absar Alam\u2019s statement, all institutions, including the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), are not independent,\u201d the CJP said.<\/p>\n \u201cCan someone go to Canada and return to Pakistan after rioting?\u201d Justice Isa asked. It is not clear who the chief justice is referring to, but Canada-based Tahirul Qadri was a central figure in PTI Chairman Imran Khan\u2019s dharna<\/em> in 2014.<\/p>\n \u201cIs this right only for those who come from Canada? Who brought them? Now that you have returned to Canada, tell us \u2026 has the work you came for been completed?<\/p>\n \u201cIslam is the religion of peace, they are also defaming Islam,\u201d the CJP pointed out, adding that there was no place for rioting in Islam.<\/p>\n Here, Justice Minallah said the Faizabad verdict was a \u201clandmark judgment\u201d. On the other hand, the CJP called it a \u201csimple order\u201d, recalling that the government at that time, good or bad, was elected by the public.<\/p>\n The SC bench then rejected the fact-finding committee constituted by the government and directed it to form another committee to probe those responsible for the Faizabad dharna<\/em>.<\/p>\n For his part, the AGP assured the bench that he would provide details regarding the new committee within two days.<\/p>\n Subsequently, the court summoned incumbent Pemra chief Saleem Baig over Alam\u2019s note. When he appeared before the bench, the CJP said Absar Alam had submitted some documents to the SC.<\/p>\n \u201cI have read the report,\u201d Baig replied, adding that Alam had written all that he had witnessed.<\/p>\n \u201cHas this never happened to you?\u201d Justice Minallah asked. \u201cNothing of this sort happened to me,\u201d the Pemra chief replied.<\/p>\n However, the CJP said Alam\u2019s note had been published in the newspapers. \u201cTake the court proceedings seriously,\u201d he directed.<\/p>\n Baig insisted that he knew nothing about what happened to the former Pemra chairman, recalling that he was appointed six months after Alam left. \u201cBefore becoming the Pemra chief, I was a grade 20 principal officer,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n \u201cAre you the head of a dummy institution?\u201d the CJP asked Baig, noting that all the institutions in the country had become a \u201cjoke\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cTell us one paragraph that Pemra implemented from the 110-page judgment,\u201d Justice Isa said. Rioting and arson, he continued, were not freedom of expression. \u201cAre two TV channels still prohibited in the Cantt area?\u201d the chief justice asked.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Justice Minallah sought the number of inquiries conducted against cable operators. \u201cYou say there is no pressure on you, but whenever people here leave their seats, they say there was a lot of pressure on them,\u201d he remarked.<\/p>\n This is a \u201ccommon culture\u201d, the judge added.<\/p>\n At one point, the CJP asked Baig about his salary to which the latter said he was paid Rs400,000. \u201cWere you the Pemra chairman when Faizabad dharna<\/em> was underway?\u201d Justice Isa further inquired, noting that Baig\u2019s name was included in the case.<\/p>\n He then reprimanded the Pemra chief for misrepresenting that he was appointed later and warned that Baig could be charged with contempt of court for failing to implement the verdict.<\/p>\n Justice Isa also asked that if the term of a Pemra chairman lasted four years, how did Baig stay in the post for so long? In his reply, the latter said he was appointed for the second time.<\/p>\n \u201cOn whose order did you file the review petition?\u201d the CJP asked Baig, assuring him that the court only wanted to strengthen the authority and find out who was interfering in its affairs.<\/p>\n In response, Baig said Pemra had decided to file the review petition.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you don\u2019t respond, we will issue an order. Saleem Baig saheb<\/em>, may God give you a long life but we have to go there. Be brave and tell us who told you to file a review petition,\u201d Justice Isa said.<\/p>\n He also inquired about Pemra\u2019s approval for the review petition. \u201cIt was verbal, not written,\u201d Baig replied. However, the chief justice asked how could a decision be taken verbally and then called Pemra\u2019s law director to the rostrum.<\/p>\n \u201cHe [Baig] is not speaking the truth, who told you to file a review?\u201d Justice Isa questioned. But the law director responded that he was unaware of the matter.<\/p>\n \u201cRead the law. Can a decision be taken by Pemra verbally?\u201d he said and then turned to Awan. \u201cAGP saheb<\/em>, Pemra chairman is saying he doesn\u2019t know about the review petition. Were there some hidden forces that filed the review plea?\u201d the CJP asked.<\/p>\n Justice Isa went on to say that without written notification, there was no existence of Pemra\u2019s review petition. \u201cYou are just wasting our time,\u201d he told Baig, adding that none of the previous three governments was pleased during the latter\u2019s tenure as Pemra chief.<\/p>\n The chief justice also highlighted that Baig\u2019s signatures were present on Pemra\u2019s review petition and directed him to take responsibility for his actions.<\/p>\n When the ECP\u2019s lawyer came to the rostrum, CJP Isa said, \u201cYou are an independent institution. Did the ECP file a futile review petition which is now being withdrawn?\u201d<\/p>\n Who was heading the commission during the Faizabad dharna<\/em>, Justice Minallah inquired. The ECP\u2019s counsel replied Sardar Raza was the chief election commissioner at that time.<\/p>\n CJP Isa noted that the electoral body had submitted an implementation report. While going through it, Justice Isa asked why the ECP had used the word \u201chafiz<\/em>\u201d with TLP members. He also noted that the report detailed the actions taken by the commission before the Faizabad verdict was issued and sought details of the measures taken after it.<\/p>\n At one point, the chief justice said that there was not a single round figure in the funding received by the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan. \u201cIt appears that these funds came from abroad, but there is no round figure of [the funds] after currency exchange,\u201d he noted.<\/p>\n The ECP lawyer subsequently asked for time to overview the matter.<\/p>\n Justice Isa asked what should be done if the commission did not implement the SC verdict. However, the electoral body\u2019s counsel said he couldn\u2019t say that the ECP would not implement the order.<\/p>\n Here, the AGP said the ECP understands that it is a constitutional institution.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a strange coincidence that constitutional institutions filed review petitions on the same day,\u201d the CJP remarked, to which Awan said that the fact these petitions were fixed for hearing after four years was also a \u201ccoincidence\u201d.<\/p>\n For his part, the ECP counsel said that except for one, no other donors of the TLP had revealed their identity.<\/p>\n \u201cHas the Election Act been implemented? TLP has not revealed the source of 33 per cent of its income,\u201d the CJP noted, adding that the commission tried to mislead the court. \u201cIs the ECP sincere with the country?\u201d<\/p>\n The electoral body\u2019s counsel replied in the affirmative.<\/p>\n Justice Isa lamented that the country\u2019s institutions were \u201cdestroyed in a systematic way\u201d. Addressing the ECP lawyer, he said it seemed as if the former was representing the TLP.<\/p>\n \u201cNow elections are coming and an entire environment has been formed that everyone is on the same page,\u201d the chief justice said.<\/p>\n Justice Minallah also said that the ECP would only be able to conduct transparent polls when it ensures transparency within the institution.<\/p>\n Subsequently, the court granted the election commission one month\u2019s time to prepare and submit a report on the TLP and its funding.<\/p>\n The IB\u2019s review petition had urged the court to set aside the adverse observations made against the department, adding that it was a premier civilian intelligence agency which was responsible for state security.<\/p>\n It had contended that the impugned order created a \u201cbad impression\u201d on the public that the IB was involved in unlawful activities and politics, after transgressing constitutional boundaries.<\/p>\n It had said the observations made in the verdict were based on \u201cvague facts\u201d and that during the sit-in, the department was in close contact with the federal and Punjab governments and forewarned them about the plans and intentions of the TLP, with a view to foiling their attempt to storm\/lockdown Islamabad.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, In response, the defence ministry had requested the court to set aside the explicit or implicit observations about the armed forces and\/or the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).<\/p>\n The ministry\u2019s petition had said that a host of factors may affect morale. However, it said, what was fatal was the belief amongst the rank and file that their officers while acting like \u201cself-proclaimed saviours\u201d were violating the fundamental rights of citizens and instead of serving \u201cPakistan and thus all its citizens\u201d, supporting a \u201cparticular political party, faction or politician\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026When the source of such remarks is the highest court in the land, it can promote fissiparous tendencies and has the capacity to destroy the ability of the armed forces to act as a cohesive fighting force,\u201d the review petition had argued.<\/p>\n It had further said there was no evidence before the court to suggest that the armed forces or ISI were, in any manner, involved with either the sit-in or a particular outcome of the general elections of 2018 or the abridgement of free speech or intimidation or censorship of the press.<\/p>\n In its petition, the ECP had contended that it had comprehensively applied and enforced the Constitution, law and code of conduct by issuing a letter to the TLP on Aug 16, 2017, asking the party to provide details of its bank account and even had issued notices to it with a warning to cancel its registration.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the PTI had questioned the mention in the verdict of the 2014 joint sit-in organised by it and the Pakistan Awami Tehreek in Islamabad, and had said the impression one gets from it was that the party conducted an illegal protest for publicity and deliberately made wrong allegations.<\/p>\n The petition contended that the party had nothing to do with the TLP Faizabad sit-in and therefore the remarks should be expunged.<\/p>\n Rashid had approached the court to remove his name from the judgement. In his petition, the AML chief pleaded that if the words concerning him in para-4 of the judgement were not expunged, he would suffer adversely in his life.<\/p>\n Daily life in Islamabad was disrupted for 20 days (from Oct 2 to Nov 27, 2017) when protesters belonging to religiopolitical parties occupied the Faizabad Interchange which connects Rawalpindi and Islamabad through the Islamabad Expressway and Murree Road, both of which are the busiest roads in the twin cities.<\/p>\n The agitators claimed that during the passage of the Elections Act 2017, the Khatm-i-Nabuwwat oath was deliberately modified as part of a larger conspiracy. The amendment to the oath was deemed a \u201cclerical error<\/a>\u201d by the government and was subsequently rectified<\/a> through an act of Parliament.<\/p>\nAbsar Alam\u2019s revelations<\/h2>\n
SC rejects govt\u2019s fact-finding panel<\/h2>\n
CJP grills incumbent Pemra chairman<\/h2>\n
\u2018Is ECP sincere with the country?\u2019<\/h2>\n
The petitions<\/h2>\n
Faizabad sit-in<\/h2>\n