I HAVE been following with great interest the proceedings of the case of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The judiciary is an institution with two sides like that of a coin. One is external which is visible to the people and the other is internal which is not visible and is not discussed in public.

What happens inside the judiciary and to the judges as they interact with the executive is not divulged to the outside world. The Chief Justice knows better because he controls the administration and deals with the executive in that connection.

So there are wheels within wheels. The executive always tries to win over the judiciary by following a carrot and stick policy. The CJP administers the oath of office to the president and vice versa, and there are important functions in the presidency and PM House with the participation of foreign dignitaries which are attended by the CJP.

Both civil and military governments want a friendly judiciary and they don’t like decisions against the government or its policies. Even otherwise, Islamabad is a small town with a limited social life. On the administrative side, the CJP can accommodate the federal government but without transgressing the Constitution and law.

During my tenure as CJP, a request was made to me by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for the appointment of a particular lawyer as attorney-general of Pakistan. I consulted the CJ of the high court of the province concerned and in spite of some difficulties, we were able to make the appointment as wished by the prime minister acceptable to all relevant quarters.
In February 1997, Mian Nawaz Sharif won the elections and took oath on February 17. One or two days before taking oath, he came to my residence in Rawalpindi for a courtesy call accompanied by Messrs Wasim Sajjad, Sartaj Aziz, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Ishaq Dar.

We had a friendly meeting of 45 minutes during which he talked about his heavy mandate and expressed his interest in dispensing cheap and quick justice at the doorstep of needy people and sought the cooperation of the courts. I assured him that the same was possible under the existing judicial system if more judges and funds were provided. Our working relationship started on a happy note until a misunderstanding was created between us. His ears were poisoned by hawks in his cabinet and supporters.

Differences started with the setting up of speedy courts, which was a parallel judicial system manned by retired judges or lawyers appointed at will for limited tenures, and then over the appointment of five judges in the Supreme Court.

Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif was not willing to let go of the CJ of the Lahore High Court and two other judges to join the Supreme Court and refused to give reasons as directed in the judgment of the Judges’ case. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif cut the number of the judges of the Supreme Court from 17 to 12 to block the appointments.

Of course, the 13th and 14th Amendments were made in the Constitution without a debate by relaxing the rules of procedure. Cases were taken in hand for hearing against the prime minister on the grounds of corruption, abuse of authority and contempt of court.

He, his supporters and party workers resented this very much and there were camps of hawks and doves. Many well-wishers gave correct advice and were in favor of an amicable settlement but the hawks remained adamant.

President Farooq Leghari and then COAS General Jehangir Karamat intervened to defuse the situation and to avoid a conflict between the executive and the judiciary, but to no avail. General Nasim Rana, DG, ISI, was also playing an important role and they are very important witnesses.

On the other hand, the government was trying to find a legislative way to get rid of the CJP. The National Assembly and Senate were in constant session. They were debating the taking away of the administrative powers of the CJP by making a roster and assigning cases to be exercised by a board of senior judges.

Damage is always done to the institution from within. The prime minister was advised to work on the judges and isolate the Chief Justice. He had a meeting with me at his Model Town residence and in the presence of Mr Majid Nizami and Mr Shahbaz Sharif offered me a better position after my retirement as CJP if I cooperated.

In return, he wanted me not to hear cases against him. I did not agree and insisted that I would decide cases according to the law, that I had no animus against him and that he should not be fearful if allegations were false.

I also offered that if he was interested in speedy trials, then within the same judicial system, I was prepared to make the high court a trial court and the Supreme Court an appellate court to decide cases in the shortest possible time, provided he gave more funds for increasing the number of judges. He agreed first but then backed out.

I was also hearing the case of the political wing of the ISI as to under what law it was functional and the scope of authority under that law. It was under such circumstances that the government of Nawaz Sharif finally decided to work on the judges of the Supreme Court to go against me. It was also decided that first a judicial order would be obtained in any proceedings, suspending the notification of my appointment as CJP and then to dislodge me by force, including an attack on the Supreme Court.

I was not afraid of the two murder attempts on me and numerous letters threatening to kill me and my family members. I sent the copies to the president and the DG, ISI. The threats were that if anything happened to the prime minister, I would not be spared.

I was presiding over the bench hearing a contempt case against the prime minister. On his request, the bench granted one week’s adjournment during which petitions were filed in the registries of the Supreme Court alleging my appointment to be unconstitutional for the reason that I was not the senior-most judge when I was appointed CJP. I was fourth on the list. The judges who were superseded did not resign or step down as is done in the armed forces.

When General Musharraf was appointed COAS out of turn, he was number three on the list. Two aggrieved generals resigned. On November 27, 1997, the Quetta bench of the Supreme Court composed of two judges, Irshad Hassan Khan and Khalilur Rahman, passed an interim order in the incidental proceedings of a rent case that the Supreme Court was incomplete as the CJP was appointed out of turn.

The third judge, Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, reached Quetta in the evening and he also appended his signature. Incidentally, all three judges in Quetta were inducted in the Supreme Court on my recommendation and had been administered their oath by me. Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui passed a similar order in the Peshawar bench. Justice Mukhtar Junejo was also a member of the bench but refused to sit on the bench in that case. Justice Siddiqui took over powers of Chief Justice and issued his own roster and directed that the matter be heard by a full court except the CJP who was restrained and Justice Ajmal Mian who was the intended beneficiary and was conveniently present in Islamabad on one week’s leave as he wanted to defuse the tension and resolve differences among the judges supporting the CJP and those supporting the prime minister.

Orders passed by the Quetta and Peshawar benches were given coverage on TV because they were in favor of the government. On November 29, 1997, the Supreme Court was stormed by a mob. I had advance information that preparations were afoot to send a large crowd of persons from Lahore by Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif in buses. I informed the DG, ISI, who later told me that the government was not involved.

One evening before the passing of the order by the Quetta bench, Justice (r) Senator Mohammad Rafiq Tarar flew in a private plane of the chief minister along with others and had a meeting with two judges of the Supreme Court from Lahore. He did a faithful job of winning over the judges of the Supreme Court in favor of the prime minister. He was rewarded with the post of the president.

It is surprising that the Supreme Court judges did not raise any objection for nearly three and a half years while I was Chief Justice and suddenly realised that my appointment was unconstitutional because I was appointed out of turn.

It turned out that out of 17 judges, 10 supported the prime minister and six were with me. Out of the 10, eight were appointed on my recommendation and were sworn in by me. All of them have retired from the Supreme Court and some got assignments after retirement. My only fault was that I was appointed out of turn, which was declared unconstitutional by 10 judges of the Supreme Court, who supported the prime minister and voted against their own CJP.

Rule of seniority was laid down in the appointment of judges when the process of consultation was involved. In the appointment of the CJP, there is no consultation as the president can appoint any one of the judges as Chief Justice or appoint a lawyer who has practised for 15 years as an advocate of a high court directly to the post of CJP.

The Constitution can be amended. In fact, that is the only way to remove ambiguity in the language. Nobody talks about the attack on the Supreme Court in November 1997 and how it happened and what was the conspiracy between certain judges and the government. The judges followed the directions of Justice Saeeduzzaman because the government gave its nod. These are the circumstances to be considered while evaluating the judgment in Malik Asad’s case. None of these 10 judges regretted the attack on the Supreme Court.

The whole offensive was filmed by hidden cameras fixed on the premises of the Supreme Court and was seen by the president, the prime minister and the COAS. Photographs were published in newspapers showing federal ministers leading the mob. I sent a reference to the president against Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui on grounds of misconduct but the prime minister refused to act.

President Musharraf in his book ‘In the line of fire’ has stated that the prime minister convinced certain judges to take his side and they passed a resolution against their own Chief Justice and then the prime minister got his party goons to storm the Supreme Court building while the court was in session.

On page 84 of the book it is stated that this matter was discussed at the meeting of the corps commanders and the author (who was himself a corps commander) supported the idea that the president and the Chief Justice be sacrificed and the prime minister be saved. Against such a background with the backing of the prime minister, the federal government and the army, the judgment in Malik Asad’s case is to be considered. It is not fair to say that it is a matter between the judges of the Supreme Court, forgetting and ignoring the conspiracy and the attack on the Supreme Court.

The 13 judges of the Supreme Court, who heard the case of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, can also consider the doctrine of necessity and relevant case law on the subject and bury the hatchet for ever. They can let ambiguities in the Constitution be rectified by parliament so that all the institutions mentioned in the Constitution can perform their duties within the parameters laid down by the Constitution to enable the nation to enjoy the fruits of real democracy after 60 years of political waywardness and constitutional confusion.

If they want the senior-most judge to be Chief Justice and the Chief Justice to be appointed and removed by the remaining judges of the Supreme Court or high court, let it be said specifically in the Constitution so that the workload of interpretation by the courts is decreased and time is given to litigation for the common man.

ORDER

For detailed reasons to be recorded later, the following issues arising out of this petition are decided as under:-

(I) Maintainability of COP No 21 OF 2007 filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. This petition is unanimously declared to be maintainable.

(II) Validity of the direction (the reference) issued by the president under Article 209(5) of the Constitution.

By a majority of 10 to 3 (Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Justice M Javed Buttar and Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, dissenting), the said direction (the reference) in question dated March 9, 2007, for separate reasons to be recorded by the honorable judges so desiring, is set aside.

(III) Vires of judges (compulsory leave) order being president’s order No 27 of 1970 and the consequent validity of the order dated 15.3.2007 passed by the president directing that the CJP shall be on leave.

The said president’s order No 27 of 1970 is unanimously declared as ultra vires of the Constitution and consequently the said order of the president dated 15.3.2007 is also unanimously declared to have been passed without lawful authority.
(IV) Validity of the order of the president dated 9.3.2007 and of the order of the same date of the Supreme Judicial Council restraining the CJP from acting as a judge of the Supreme Court and/or the chief justice of Pakistan.

Both these orders are, unanimously, set aside as being illegal.

However, since according to the minority view on the question of validity of the direction (the reference) in question, the said reference had been competently filed by the president, therefore, this court could pass a restraining order under Article 184(3) read with Article 187 of the Constitution.

(V) Validity of the appointment of the honorable chief justices of Pakistan in view of the annulment of the two restraining orders and the compulsory leave order in respect of the CJP.

The appointments in question of the honorable chief justices of Pakistan vide notification dated 9.3.2007 and the notification dated 22.3.2007 are, unanimously, declared to have been made without lawful authority. However, this invalidity shall not affect the ordinary working of the Supreme Court or the discharge of any other constitutional and/or legal obligations by the honourable acting chief justices of Pakistan during the period in question and this declaration is so made by applying the de-facto doctrine.

(VI) Accountability of the hon’ble chief justice of Pakistan.

It has never been anybody’s case before us that the chief justice of Pakistan was not accountable. The same issue, therefore, does not require any adjudication. All other legal and constitutional issues raised before us shall be answered in due course through the detailed judgment/judgments to follow.

ORDER OF THE COURT

By majority of 10 to 3 (Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Justice M Javed Buttar and Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad, dissenting), this Constitution Original Petition No 21 of 2007 filed by Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, is allowed as a result whereof the above-mentioned direction (the Reference) of the President dated March 9, 2007 is set aside. As a further consequence thereof, the petitioner CJP shall be deemed to be holding the said office and shall always be deemed to have been so holding the same.

The other connected petitions shall be listed before the appropriate benches, in due course, for their disposal in accordance with law. Islamabad, the 20th July, 2007.

ISLAMABAD, July 9 (APP) - A 13-member bench of the Supreme Court Monday summoned president of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Munir A Malik over his reported threat to burn the top court if it gave a verdict in chief justice case like the judgement in Maulvi Tamizuddin case.

The bench, headed by Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, issued notice to Munir A Malik to appear before it on Tuesday to give an explanation, after taking serious notice of the news report.

The SCBA president reportedly told a private channel: “Lawyers will burn that Supreme Court, which will give the verdict in CJ like that of Maulvi Tamizuddin case.”

Munir A Malik also said if the SC decides the cases as a ‘B’ team of the government, they would not accept the verdict. In its order, the bench said Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan, lawyer of Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was told about the reported statement in the absence of Munir A Malik who has been directed to appear before this court in person on Tuesday to explain his position.
Aitzaz Ahsan was also directed to convey the court’s order to the SCBA president. The Registrar of the Supreme Court was also directed to convey the order to the concerned by telephone as well as by fax.

One of the petitioners, Wahab ul Khairi, who is chairman of Al Jihad Trust, intervened in the matter and requested the court to take very serious notice of the reported threat.Justice Ramday said that Munir A Malik being president of Supreme Court Bar Association was the highest officer of this court and wondered how people would take his statement regarding the highest court of the country.

He said if such attitude was adopted this court would not hear and decide the CJ case.

Justice Syed Jamshed Ali Shah termed Munir Malik’s statement “very shocking” and said lawyers should not give “wild and nonsensical” statements. He asked if the reported statement was part of efforts to prevent the court from giving a judgment and to use the case for “some other purposes.”

Justice Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi observed that the statement was “very strange” and added if they were not willing to accept verdict of this bench then there was no pointing in continuing the proceedings.

Justice Abbasi said if Munir Malik were to disown the statement then proceedings should be initiated against the concerned newspaper. But this matter cannot be left unattended, he added.

Justice M. Javed Buttar terming the statement “highly irresponsible” said if they are propagating that the court of the people has given a decision then there is no need of a verdict by this bench.

“If he (Justice Iftikhar) is being described as people’s chief justice, then it means that he is not chief justice of Pakistan,” Justice Buttar further observed. (Another Munir A Malik statement to a private television channel)

Aitzaz Ahsan clarified that Munir A Malik is not representing chief justice in this case and that only he himself is counsel of the petitioner. Munir Malik had also not represented the chief justice in the Supreme Judicial Council and he was there only as observer in his capacity of SCBA president, he added.

Aitzaz Ahsan expressed displeasure over the reported statement and said “I apologize” over it.

When Aitzaz Ahas expressed the view that Munir Malik might have been quoted out of context, Justice Ramday reminded him that the matter was very serious and the bench could not sidestep it.

“None of us wants to be burnt alive,” Justice Ramday remarked, adding that such a threat was meant to compel the court to endorse a judgement written by the counsels of the petitioner.

If the bench did not spare law secretary, intelligence agencies officials and even suspended the license of an advocate on record of the Federation, then there was no question of showing leniency to other side, Justice Ramday observed.

He further asked: “If you are not ready to accept our decision then what is the purpose of carrying on these proceedings?”

Justice Ramday and his colleagues however appreciated the attitude and conduct of Aitzaz Ahsan in arguing his case.

Justice Faqir Mohammad Khokhar observed that independence of judiciary means that it should be free not only from the influence of the government but also from public pressure.

Malik Mohammad Qayyum, counsel of the Federation, apprised the court that he had the complete record of the interview given by Munir A Malik and he would submit a CD for the record.

Qayyum said Munir Malik had been making such statements repeatedly while appearing in talk shows of various channels.

During the proceedings Monday, Qayyum continued his arguments and will resume when the court meets again on Tuesday.

Earlier Attorney General Makhdoom Ali Khan told the court that the process to inspect Supreme Court premises and chambers of judges and their residences to locate any bugging devices was underway and substantial progress has already been made.

He requested the bench to grant more time for the completion of the process. The court accepted the request and allowed one week more with a direction to submit a report next Monday in this regard.

The bench also directed the concerned intelligence bureau officials to contact the chief justice in order to carry out the inspect of his house according to his guidelines.

Many of you may remember that the Supreme Court recently suspended the license of an attorney for the Federation for submitting scandalous documents in the reference against the Chief Justice of Pakistan. I am interested in seeing what happens with the Supreme Court Bar Association’s President after making these comments.

It is well-nigh impossible for them to decipher as to what is true and what is untrue in the three affidavits filed by Lt-Gen (retd) Hamid Javed, CoS to President Musharraf, Maj-Gen Nadeem Ijaz chief of Military Intelligence (MI), and Brig (retd) Ijaz Shah chief of Intelligence Bureau (IB), and the one earlier filed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry with the full court.

The three affidavits rebut what the fourth one contains. All signatories are highly responsible people, three senior serving or retired military officers, and the one, the chief justice of Pakistan. All of them may be faithful to their separate cause if the saying —’everything is fair in love and war’, is given credence.

During days at the law college in the late 1970s, a teacher, who was a practising lawyer, once said to his pupils that only the words “I ____________son of______________ do solemnly state on oath as under” appearing in the beginning of affidavits are true, but nothing could be said with certainty about the remaining parts of the depositions contained in them, which are always debatable.

This was indeed a damning comment. It is not known how far this assertion applies to present affidavits. One of them noted, “by distorting the facts and relying mostly on conjecture, a very misleading picture has been portrayed (by Justice Chaudhry), which is far from the truth.”

Rare statements on the oath filed by the two chief spymasters and the CoS are in reaction to Justice Chaudhry’s affidavit. The present three statements contain several revealing claims.

They and Justice Chaudhry’s affidavit reflect the elaborate role of the intelligence agencies even in matters concerning judges. The chief justice himself comprehensively involved intelligence officials and used to have excellent relations and rapport with their heads.

The official affidavits are full of umpteen rebuttals of “inaccuracies” contained in Chief Justice Chaudhry’s statement. They claim that it was his request that MI, IB and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chiefs be called in his meeting with Musharraf.
A perusal of the three affidavits shows that these were drafted with a lot of care and hard work. Most enlarged affidavit is the one filed by CoS Lt-Gen (retd) Hamid Javed, which was supported by a number of sworn statements of bureaucrats and private citizens and documents. It took care of each and every claim of Justice Chaudhry.

A mega disclosure is that the chief justice, during one of his several meetings with the MI chief, “was of the view that the president should dissolve the assemblies as they were becoming a nuisance and hold elections under the chief justice. He wanted me to assure all concerned that he (CJP) will make things smooth.”

Another revelation is that Justice Chaudhry “was comfortable with the officer in charge of the Islamabad detachment of MI and insisted that it was necessary for us to remain in regular touch with the officer in charge of MI in Lahore. He used to task him on a regular basis to provide information on judges in the Punjab so he could build a database for his own reference. He also desired that all the detachment in charges in the four provincial capitals must remain in touch with him so that he can have complete information about all the judges.”

It was admitted in the affidavits that intelligence agencies conducted, on Justice Chaudhry’s insistence, discreet, probe into the adverse media campaign against him. It was claimed that he wanted to primarily discuss with Musharraf on March 9 a reference against him filed by Peshawar High Court judge Justice Jehanzeb Rahim.

Maj Gen Nadeem Ijaz claimed that it was incorrect that the chief justice remained at the president’s camp office against his will. He denied that the statement attributed to him by Justice Chaudhry in his affidavit that now their paths are different was also incorrect, as “I never said any such thing.”

The IB chief refuted Justice Chaudhry’s assertion that the chief justice, as claimed by the latter, had stated to the president that “I strongly believe in God Who will help me.”

In just two years between October 2004 and October 2006, Justice Chaudhry had eight formal calls on Musharraf, twice as judge of the apex court, at his desire at the Army House and Camp Office, according to Hamid Javed’s affidavit. His detailed statement refuted all claims, major and minor, of the chief justice.

For example, it claimed that Justice Chaudhry had one-on-one meeting with Musharraf, with only the military secretary present. “The ADC was not present in this meeting as stated in the CJP’s affidavit. There is only one photographer and one TV cameraman stationed at the Camp Office to cover the routine calls/meetings. It is incorrect that a number of TV cameramen and photographers were ushered in as stated in the CJP’s affidavit.”

At another point, the COS wrote that when Justice Chaudhry did not accept most of the other points in the reference as mentioned by the president to him, Musharraf told him that the details could be discussed in the presence of the intelligence heads, who had also been asked by the chief justice to find out the details.

The affidavit accused Justice Chaudhry of illegal allotment of a plot in Karachi, unauthorised reimbursement of petrol, irregular TA claims, harassment of judges, personal bias in appointment of judges, misuse of authority, intimidation of civil servants, interference in administration, self projection, penchant for expensive cars, high visibility on media etc.

It claimed that the chief justice was not held incommunicado at the Camp Office and against his will. Another disclosure made by the COS’ affidavit was that from March 9 to March 13 (when Justice Chaudhry faced the maximum restrictions at his official residence), more than 350 calls were made or received from and on the mobile phone of the chief justice’s son. The landline was also in use and in addition to the local calls, which are not recorded in the exchange, and a number of outstation and mobile phone calls were made, it stated.

An affidavit, a written declaration made under oath before a notary public or other authorised officer, is always considered valid in a court of law. However, if the other litigant also files a similar sworn statement contradicting his rival’s, the court can call the deponents and lawyers of the two sides can cross-examine them.

From The News

“I, Lt Gen (R) Hamid Javaid son of Ch Muhammad Ashraf, presently working as Staff to the President of Pakistan, do hereby solemnly stale on oath as under:-

1. I was Appointed as Chief of Staff to the President on 1 November 2002, and have continued to work in this position todate.

2. As Chief of Staff to the President, my responsibilities include coordination of all activities related to the President’s office work.

3. That I have read the affidavit filed by Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of Pakistan (on forced leave) (”CJP”) and all adverse allegations made therein unless specifically admitted herein below are hereby denied.

4. I say that as per official record, Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of Pakistan (on forced leave) (”CJP”) made ten formal calls on the President of Pakistan. The CJP himself desired all these meetings.
The details of the meetings between the President of Pakistan and Mr. Justice

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry both as Judge of the Supreme Court and CJP are given below: -

Date Venue

As Judge of SCP

07-10-2004 Army House

07-05-2005 Camp Office

As CJP Vl

04-10-2005 Army House

16-12-2005 Camp Office

17-12-2005 Aiwan-e-Sadr

19-05-2006 Camp Office

01-06-2006 Army House

04-10-2006 Army House

13-02-2007 Aiwan-e-Sadr

09-03-2007 Camp Office

That besides the above formal meetings the CJP and the President interacted frequently on a number of state and social functions at the Aiwan-e-Sadr, Camp Office and GHQ.

5. The Federal Government received a number of complaints against the CJP.

6. The Federal Government prepared a draft Reference against the CJP for filing the same before the Supreme Judicial Council (”SJC”)-

7. Details of the draft Reference and the Code of Conduct for Judges were brought to the notice of the President by the Prime Minister on 7 March 2007 in my presence.

8. The next day on 8 March 2007, the President’s Secretariat received a summary containing advice of the Prime Minister to the President to make a Reference against CJP to the SJC under Article 209 of the Constitution.

9. The Prime Minister advised that the CJP be “restrained” and also that the most senior available Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan be appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan under Article 180 of the Constitution, as it would not be in the public interest, nor in consonance with the norms of judicial propriety, that the CJP continues to perform functions of his high judicial office while the SJC was conducting an inquiry into allegations against him for misconduct.

10. On 8 March 2007 the CJP rang the Military Secretary to the President (”MS”), requesting an urgent meeting with the President. The President was due to leave for Karachi on 9 March, to participate in the Pakistan Navy exercise “Aman 2007″. The MS explained this position to CJP but as the CJP insisted on the meeting, the MS stated that he would do his best to re-adjust the schedule.

Later, after having re-adjusted the schedule the MS told the Deputy Military Secretary (DMS) to inform the staff of the CJP accordingly. The DMS later confirmed to the MS that this had been done. The appointment was accordingly set for 11:30 a.m. on 9 March 2007.

11. The CJP arrived at the President’s Camp Office at 1135 a.m. on 9 March 2007. The CJP did not come to Army House to meet the President, as stated by him in his affidavit. The meeting took place in the President’s Secretariat’s Camp Office, Rawalpindi, in which the President and his staff hold office.

12. The CJP had a one on one meeting with the President starting at 11:45 a.m., with only the MS present. The ADC was not present in this meeting as stated in the CJP’s affidavit. There is only one photographer and one TV cameraman stationed at the Camp Office to cover the routine calls/meetings of the President. It is incorrect that a number of TV cameramen and photographers were ushered in, as stated in the CJP’s affidavit. The CJP first briefed the President in detail for about 20 minutes on the following events: -

a. SAARC Law Conference.

b. SAARC Chief Justices Conference.

c. Golden Jubilee ceremony of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Later, the CJP opened a file and shared with the President the contents Of The complaint filed against him (CJP) by Mr. Justice Jehanzeb Rahim, Judge, Peshawar High Court. He dwelled at length for about 20 minutes on the details of the case to persuade the President to his point of view in dealing with the complaint.

13. The CJP in his affidavit has sought to give an incorrect impression that the President had raised the issue of complaint of a serving Judge of the Peshawar High Court with the CJP. The facts are;-

(i) Till then the President had not received or seen the aforementioned complaint in writing. The President, therefore, did not have any intention to raise this matter with the CJP. This issue was raised by the CJP on his own initiative and not by the President as stated in CJP’s affidavit. In fact, this appeared to be the main reason for his requested call on the President.

This fact is also substantiated from the following:-
a. CJP called Mr. Abdullah Yousuf, Chairman CBR, to his Chamber in the Supreme Court on 8 March 2007. The Chairman went to the meeting assuming that, as per his usual practice, the CJP would be discussing cases of CBR pending in the Supreme Court. However, the main issue that the CJP discussed with the Chairman CBR was the complaint filed against him by Mr. Justice Jehanzeb Rahim, a serving Judge of the Peshawar High Court and explained in detail that he was not at fault. All this was done with a view to convince the Chairman CBR and to persuade him to convey a favourable impression in this respect to the Presidency.

The Chairman CBR informed me that when he entered the Chamber of the CJP the latter was on telephone. After completing the phone call he informed the Chairman CBR that he was speaking to the MS and had requested an appointment on 9 March 2007 for a call on the President. The CJP impressed upon the Chairman CBR that as his appointment for a call on the President was likely, it was imperative that the Chairman CBR conveyed his clarifications to the President immediately. The CJP said that this was necessary as it was somewhat embarrassing to explain one’s own case in a detailed manner. The Chairman CBR promised to convey CJP’s clarifications to the Presidency, which he did to the COS the same day. [See:
Affidavit by Abdullah Yousaf, Chairman CBR]

b. CJP also telephoned Major General Mian Nadeem Ijaz Ahmad, DG Ml on 8 March 2007 at night to seek his assistance and support regarding complaint filed against him by Mr. Justice Jehanzeb Rahim of the Peshawar High Court. He informed the DG MI that he had sought an appointment for a call on the President which had been confirmed to take place on 9 March 2007 at 1130 hrs and that it would be appreciated if DG MI could also be present in the Camp Office to support the CJP. [Sec: Affidavit of DG MI].

(ii) From the’ foregoing it is clear that the issue of complaint filed by a serving Judge of the Peshawar High Court against the CJP was not raised by the President but by the CJP which apparently was the primary purpose of his call on the President.

14. After the CJP had concluded his foregoing points, the President observed that in his last meeting with the CJP at Aiwan-e-Sadr on 13 February 2007, the CJP had requested the President to ask (the intelligence agencies to assist the CJP in suppressing the media reports which were tarnishing his image. The President also told the CJP that he was informed that the DG MI and DG IB had also been called individually several times by the CJP at his residence for similar assistance. The DG ISI, was also called at his residence once for the same purpose.

15. Based on the CJP’s own request, the intelligence agencies carried out a discreet fact finding probe.

16. The President informed the CJP that he has had the best of relations with the CJP and he held him in high esteem and he was, therefore, pained to learn about the findings of the intelligence agencies.

17. Thereafter, the President drew his attention to the main points of the Reference received by him.

18. The affidavit of the CJP conveys an impression as if the President did not have any consolidated document but only a few pieces of papers based on the letter written by Mr. Naeem Bokhari. This statement is incorrect as the Reference from the Prime Minister along with advice to the President was received on 8 March 2007 and the President had jotted down

points after reading it. The President’s notes consisted of points related to the

Reference and not points based on Naeem Bokhari’s letter,

as stated in the affidavit of CJP.

19. The President mentioned these points to the CJP. Notwithstanding his personal cordial relations with the CJP, the President was bound by the advice received from the Prime Minister and had no discretion in the matter.

20. The CJP denied having approached any body for any undue favour in the Government in connection with the career of his son. However, when reminded that he had approached both the President and the Prime Minister, as well, for this purpose, the CJP readily accepted the same but stated that he had done the same considering the President as his elder brother.

21. The CJP mentioned that he had always extended cooperation to the Government and would remain cooperative in future as well. He said that he did not accept most of the other points and insisted that he would like to know the details. The President, thereafter, told the CJP that the details could be discussed in the presence of the intelligence heads, who had also been asked by the CJP himself to find out the details. The CJP had extremely good relations with the intelligence heads, most of whom he met frequently.

He, therefore, wanted to meet them. The Prime Minister joined the meeting at that stage. Thereafter, at 1300 hours, the deponent and the intelligence heads, joined the meeting.

22. Details of the Reference and the salient of the intelligence probe initialed at the request of the CJP were thereafter discussed. The initial

information received by the Federal Government through the intelligence probe and

other sources proved correct on subsequent verification and counter-check.

Details are as follows: (A) Allotment of Plot in Karachi

(a) Judges of the Superior Judiciary were not eligible for allotment of plots in Federal Government Employees I lousing Scheme, Phase-II, Karachi, launched in February 1999, which was meant for Federal Government Employees with minimum of It) years regular Federal Government Service on 1 January 1999. The expression “Federal Government Employee” was clearly defined to include only civil servants as defined under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (including civilian employees paid from defence estimates) and employees of autonomous/semi-autonomous organizations and public sector corporations under

the administrative control of the Federal Government (including employees serving in the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation). The Chief Justice of Pakistan is clearly not a Federal Government employee. [See: Copy of Brochure of FGEHF for Karachi Housing Scheme Phase-II]

(b) In violation of the said eligibility criteria, CJP, who was not even a Judge of the Supreme Court on I January 1999, applied and obtained a plot in the said scheme. (Sec: (i) Application of CJP for allotment of plot and (ii) Proof of Allotment]

(c) It may be slated that in his capacity as a judge he had already been allotted a plot in Islamabad,

(E) Harassment of Judges

(a) CJP orally ordered Mr. Justice Akhtar Shabbir and Mr. Justice

Sheikh Abdul Rashid of Lahore High Court not to come to court till their retirement. Mr. Justice Sheikh Abdul Rashid accordingly did not attend office till his retirement.

(b) CJP launched a campaign of indiscreet character assassination against a number of judges of the High Courts.

(c) The CJP wanted to initiate proceedings in the SJC for misconduct against a number of judges of the Lahore High Court as well as of the High Court of Sindh and the Peshawar High Court. The Federal Government, however, had nothing against them. These judges included:
Lahore High Court

(i) Mr. Justice Abdul Shakoor Piracha

(ii) Mr. Justice Shabbar Raza Rizvi

(iii) Mr. Justice Akhtar Shabbir

(iv) Mr. Justice Sheikh Abdul Rashid

High Court of Sindh

(i) Mr. Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany

(ii) Mr. Justice Mushir Alam

(iii) Mr. Justice Arif Hussain Khilji

(iv) Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim

(v) Mr. Justice Afzal Soomro

Peshawar High Court

(i) Mr. Justice Shah Jehan Khan

(ii) Mr. Justice Ejaz ul Hassan Khan

(iii) Mr. Justice Jehanzeb Rahim

Personal bias in appointment of Judges

(a) His insistence on appointment of judges of his choice, in complete disregard to the recommendations of the other constitutional consultees, created an impasse, resulting in a large number of vacant posts in the High Courts of Punjab and Balochistan, which adversely affected the working of these courts. Lahore High Court is, thus, short of seventeen (17) judges while Balochistan is short of three (3) judges. A total number of seven (7) appointments to the High Court of Sindh were also [lending with the CJP.

(b) He agreed, in his meetings with the Governor Balochistan and CJ, Balochistan High Court (Constitutional Consultees) on appointment of certain judges to the BHC, but later refused to honour the mutual understanding. The Governor reported (his to the President in his letter on 10 February 2007.[See: Governor Balochistan's letter]

(G) Misuse of Authority

(a) The CJP insisted that the previous Chief Justice of FSC Mr. Justice Ch Ijaz Yousaf be retired. He later pressurized Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar, Judge Lahore High Court, to withdraw his nomination after he had been notified as CJ of FSC. The post of CJ FSC remained vacant for a considerable time.

(b) Finally, following the appointment of Mr. Justice Haziqul Khairi the current CJ FSC he insisted on forcing upon the new CL judges of his own (CJP’s) choice. ‘Hie CJ FSC refused to accept this and threatened to resign. The CJP, thus, created an impasse, which resulted in an incomplete and dysfunctional Federal Shariat Court for several months.

(H) Intimidation of Civil Servants The CJP summoned Additional Chief Secretary Mr. Khushnood Lashari and later Chief Secretary Mr. Kamran Rasool and made them wait for hours on being provided a Mercedes Benz car of an older model. He wanted Mercedes car of latest model. The two officers were pressurized to immediately suspend from service, Mr. Mushtaq Hamdani, DG (Protocol), Punjab, for this alleged lapse. Mr. Hamdani saved his skin only after tendering an unconditional apology. [See: Unqualified apology tendered by Lt Col (R) Mushtaq Hussain Hamdani, DG(Protocol) Punjab and Affidavit by Mr. Khushnood Akhtar Lashari, former Additional Chief Secretary Punjab].

(I) Intimidation of Police Officers (a) While passing through Hyderabad, enroute to Sukkur, the CJP got extremely annoyed with DPO, Hyderabad, Mr. Ali Ahmad Junejo, for not being personally present to escort him.

(b) The DPO’s apology and explanation that he had gone to Islamabad for an official meeting, did not satisfy the CJ, who asked the officer to immediately see him at Sukkur. The DPO promptly complied but was not granted an audience and was instead conveyed orders that he should go back to Hyderabad and come to Islamabad after a few days. [See:
Affidavit by Mr. Ali Ahmad Junejo, DPO Hyderabad].

(J) Interference in Administration

During a private visit to Pishin with his family, the CJP ordered the DPO, Mr. Amil Shamim Wynne, to immediately promote his persona! orderly. Constable Abdur Rehman. The DPO submitted that the Constable did not meet the requisite criteria and could not be promoted under the rules. The CJP, however, insisted compliance of his directions before ,. $nd of the day. The DPO eventually, had to oblige, the same day, under pressure of the CJP. [See: Affidavit by Mr. Amil Shameem Wyne, former DPO Pishin]

(K) Self Projection
High Visibility on Media

(a) The CJP, unlike the former Chief Justices of Pakistan, who generally spoke through their judgments, desired a lot of self-projection and especially employed an officer to arrange special media projection for him. The PRO was tasked to ensure prominent reporting of CJP’s activities in all newspapers and the electronic media.

(b) PTV was ordered to ensure that the CJP was given daily coverage in the news prominently. [See: Affidavit by Mr. Khalid Bilal, former PRO Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Concern with Protocol

(c) The CJP used hooded and armed security guards whose presence created harassment and panic for citizens at airports and public places upon his arrival.

(d) Deeply concerned with protocol, the CJP would insist in writing on provision of cars of his choice (Mercedes or BMW) at the places he was visiting, even going to the extent of asking for police escorts consisting of personnel nominated by him. More, recently he also ordered sealing of all traffic during his movement in Islamabad and other cities. [See: (i) Affidavit by Mr. Muddassir Iqbal, DG(Protocol), Sindh (ii) Affidavit by Mr. Zia-ul-Hasan Khan, former IG Punjab (iii) Affidavit by Mr. Mushtaq Hussain Hamdani, DG (Protocol) Punjab and (iv) Supreme Court's letters dated 20 August 2005, and 22 March, 20 April, 21 October and 7 December 2006]

(e) During the CJP’s visits to Karachi, the IG, Sindh, Mr. Jahnagir Mirza, was asked in writing to place 3 Police mobiles, 2 Police jeeps. Elite force contingent, SP Rana Pervez for escort, Inspector Jaffar Abbas for pilot duty and ASI Waqar Azim for gunman duty alongwith walkie talkie set and 9-mm Glock-17 pistol. The IG complied until the time that an officer of the rank of DIG was required to escort the CJP. The IG regretted as this was not done even in the case of .President and Prime Minister. [See: Affidavit by Mr. Jehangir Mirza, former IG Sindh].

Penchant for Expensive Cars

(f) Two Honda Accord cars were purchased from Government funds, in relaxation of rules, for protocol duty for a 2-day conference, at a cost of Rs. 60 lacs. These cars have since then been used by C.JP’s family and son at Islamabad and Lahore for purely private and personal use. CJP’s son Dr. Arslan Iftikhar who was using one of these cars (CIA-2) in Lahore drew petrol on Supreme Court Account against Registration umber IDL-9966. [See: (i) Affidavit by Mr. Safdar Ali, Constable (ii) Affidavit by Mr. Muhammad Naeem, Assistant Incharge (Security Guard),

(iii) Affidavit by Mr. Murravat Bari, Incharge Security and
(iv) Affidavit by Ali Ahmed, Manager, Kakasian Autos, Lahore)

23. Besides the above information a large number of other complaints were, received by the Federal Government against the CJP.

24. In his affidavit, the CJP has tried to create an impression as if the Mercedes Car in his use had been sent by the Prime Minister of his own volition. To the contrary, CJP obtained the said car by exerting maximum pressure.

25. Under the Supreme Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order, 1997, a Judge is entitled to the use of only one official car (1600 cc), subject to fuel limit of 400 liters per month. (Article 21). [See: Statement of Ministry of Law, Justice & Human Rights]

26. The Mercedes car in the use of the then Chief Justice of Pakistan in 1997 was surrendered by his successor Mr. Chief Justice Ajmal Mian in March 1998, who also laid down guidelines that in case of shortage of ears in the Supreme Court Car Pool, the Honourable Judges would share the available cars but in no case the Court would request the Cabinet Division for providing ears to any of the Judges of the Supreme Court at Islamabad. [See: Supreme Court's Order regarding use of official transport]

27. Contrary to the above rules/guidelines, Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry pressurized the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister Mr Javed Sadiq Malik for provision of a Mercedes Benz car from the pool of the Cabinet Division, which was provided in July 2005.

28. Being dissatisfied with the 1993 model car, CJP soon started agitating for its replacement with a 2004 model Mercedes Benz car. He kept pressing the matter till Prime Minister’s approval for replacement of the car in February 2006. [See: Affidavit by Mr. Javed Sadiq Malik, former PSPM]

29. The impression sought Lo be created by CJP that the sole purpose of the meeting was to extract resignation from the CJP, is incorrect. The meeting held at the request of CJP, in which he himself raised the issue of complaint filed by a judge of the Peshawar High Court, was utilized to inform the CJP about the Reference which had been received by the President a day earlier and which the President was duty bound to submit to the SJC in spite of his good relations with CJP. The result of the probe conducted by intelligence agencies at the behest of CJP was also shared with the CJP during this meeting. The intelligence chiefs were asked to join the meeting when the CJP so desired.

30. Through the affidavit, an attempt has been made to create an impression that CJP was made to stay at the President’s Secretariat, Camp Office, Rawalpindi, against his will. The contents of the CJP’s affidavit are self-contradictory. He on the one hand has slated that an officer, “prevented the exit of the deponent” and on the other he has stated that he was kept at the Camp Office “on one pretext or the other”

31. As a routine security measure, persons visiting the President are requested not to carry mobile phones with them. The CJP, however, during the course of the day had a message conveyed to his Staff Officer that his family be informed that his programme to go to Lahore had been canceled. The message was duly communicated by the Staff Officer, it is, therefore, incorrect that the CJP was held incommunicado and against his will at the Camp Office. By distorting the facts and relying mostly on conjecturing, a very misleading picture has been portrayed, which is far from the truth.

32. The fact of the matter is that CJP went to call on the President on his own request. He even asked DG MI to be present there to support him.

Earlier, lie had met the DG IB and DG ISI and had sought their support.The CJP enjoyed cordial relations with all the intelligence chiefs who were present. Personally no one bore any ill will towards him. He and his family were on visiting terms with the DG IB. The DG MI and CJP spoke frequently and the former visited the latter, at his residence, a number of limes. The environment during the entire duration remained polite and the decorum was maintained at all times. No one threatened the CJP. No one coerced him to write out a resignation. Resignation in such situations is always an option. The CJP chose to face the Reference. [See: Affidavit of Brig (Retd.) Ijaz Ahmad Shah, DG IB].

33. At the personal level the CJP enjoyed excellent relations wth all who mattered including the President. The President was, however, obligated under the provisions of the Constitution to make the Reference after he had been so advised.

34. When the CJP wanted to have the details of (he points raised, the intelligence chiefs were called in, at his request. The President, the Prime Minister, the COS to the President and Military Secretary to the President left at 1400 hrs and the Chief Justice stayed behind for further discussions with the Intelligence heads with whom he had cordial relations. The entire file of the reference with supporting documents and intelligence information in several folders remained available and a lot of time was consumed as the CJP discussed the matter in detail with those present. The DG IB and DG ISI also left at 1500 hours. The CJP remained with the DG MI till his departure, the latter went to see him off till his car. While with the DG MI, the CJP kept discussing the Reference and the possibility of another meeting with the President hich could not be arranged. [See: Affidavit of Major General Mian Nadeem Ijaz Ahmad, DG Ml].

35. The statement in (he affidavit of CJP that any special plane was made available for the Chief Justice, Lahore High Court is incorrect.

36. It may also be stated that the President usually is in uniform. The meeting with the CJP was scheduled on the insistence of the CJP for 9 March 2007 after re-adjusting the schedule of the President. This, as stated above was done on 8 March 2007.

37. The CJP has also given the impression that he was for several days held incommunicado at his residence where his telephone lines were disconnected and the mobile phones of his family members jammed. This is incorrect. From 5 p.m. on 9 March 2007 till 13 March more than three hundred and fifty calls were made/received from/on the mobile phone of his son. Amongst others Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif also called on this mobile line.[See: The News, press clipping]. The land line was also in use and in addition to the-local calls which arc not recorded in the exchange, a number of outstation and mobile phone calls were made. [See:Toll data of phone companies]

38. Mindful of the dignity of the high office of the CJP and given its esteem for the institution of the judiciary, it is with considerable reluctance that the aforementioned facts have been raised. This course has now been reluctantly adopted merely to bring the facts on the record. This has been done because the CJP has filed an affidavit which is incorrect in material particulars and statements have been made by counsel both in and out of court that as the CJP’s affidavit remains unrebutted it must be deemed true.

The two other intelligence officials, in their affidavits, also denied the claims and pointed out that the March 9 meeting between the CJP and the President was held on the request Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry.

The COS to the President, in his affidavit, gave details backed with documentary evidence about irregularities of CJP related to allotment of plot, reimbursement of petrol and TA claims. He also cited examples of “harassment of judges” by CJP, especially of the four Lahore High Court judges, five Sindh High Court judges and three Peshawar High Court judges.

The COS also mentioned “personal bias in appointment of judges” on the part of the CJP, thereby causing shortage of judges at the high courts in Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan.

Lt-Gen (retd) Hamid Javaid also cited various examples of “misuse of authority, intimidation of civil servants, intimidation of police officers, interference in administration, self-projection, penchant for expensive cars.”

The DG Military Intelligence stated that he and the chief justice used to meet frequently at each other’s residence.

“Once the CJP phoned and asked me to come for a discussion. When I went to see him he started discussing the political situation.

“He was of the view that the President should dissolve the assemblies as they were becoming a nuisance and hold elections under the CJP,” Major General Mian Nadeem Ijaz Ahmad said in his six-page affidavit.

The DG Military Intelligence added: “He (CJP) wanted me to assure all concerned that he (CJP) will make things very smooth.”

He said the CJP used to remain in regular touch with the officer incharge of MI at Lahore and “task him on a regular basis to provide information on judges in Punjab so he could build a database for his own reference.”

The CJP also desired that all the detachment incharges of MI in the four provincial capitals must remain in touch with him so that he could have complete information about all the judges, the DG Military Intelligence stated.

Maj-Gen Nadeem Ijaz revealed that the CJP had also asked him facilitate his meeting with the Director General ISI.

The DG Military Intelligence recalled what transpired when Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry met the President and the latter’s Camp Office in Rawalpindi on March 9.

He said that he along with COS to the President, DG ISI and DG Intelligence Bureau, went to the President’s chamber at the CAMP Office, where the President, the Prime Minister and the CJP were already present. The Military Secretary to the President was also there.

Between 1300 and 1400 hrs on March 9, the details of the Reference submitted by the Federal Government against the CJP and some of the findings of the intelligence agencies as a result of the exercise initiated at the behest of the CJP were discussed.

During the discussion the CJP “clearly stated that he would face the Reference,” the MI chief stated.

At 1400 hrs the President left for Jumma prayers, accompanied by the Prime Minister, the COS to the President and the President’s Military Secretary. Thereafter the MI head stated, the CJP, DG ISI and DG IB continued discussion on the various points and all the material and record was available, according to the affidavit.

“Nothing discourteous was said by anyone during these discussions. The CJP had clearly informed the President and the Prime Minister that he would face the Reference.

“It was, therefore, not open to anyone of us to make any demands on the CJP. No demands were made. The discussion between us was limited to the Reference,” Maj-Gen Nadeem Ijaz said, in reference to CJP claim that he was

pressurized to resign.

After sometime the DG ISI and DG IB also left the meeting. Only the CJP and DG military intelligence remained there and they further discussed the Reference, the affidavit says.

The DG Military Intelligence stated that the CJP wanted to meet the President again and he was told that the President had already left for Army House and from there to the airport to fly to Karachi.

“We waited till the President reached Karachi. It is incorrect that the CJP remained at the Camp Office against his will.

“The CJP’s view that one more meeting with the President would be beneficial was communicated to the President at Karachi. The President was, however, of the view that no useful purpose would be served as the Reference had already been dispatched,” Maj-Gen Nadeem Ijaz said.

The DG Military Intelligence quoted the President as saying that he “had nothing personal against the CJP and he was, in any event, bound to follow the advice of the Prime Minister as per the Constitution.”

He said he went with the CJP to see him off to his car. “The statements attributed to me by the CJP when I was seeing him off are incorrect.”

DG Intelligence Bureau Brig (retd) Ijaz Ahmed Shah, in his affidavit, said that the discussions on March 9 at the Camp Office were “courteous.”

“There was no acrimonious exchange. No one made any threat. The CJP having clearly informed the President and the Prime Minister that he would face the reference, the question of anyone of us making any demands of any kind on the CJP simply did not arise,” the Intelligence Bureau head said.

I, Mr Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, The Chief Justice of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as the “deponent”) do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

That the deponent has filed the titled petition in this Hon’ble Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, inter alia, assailing the Reference No.43/2007 dated March 09, 2007;Notification No F.1 (2)/2005.A.II dated 09-03-2007, whereby the deponent was illegally and unlawfully restrained to perform his constitutional functions as a judge of this Hon’ble Court and as Chief Justice of Pakistan; Order dated March 09, 2007 passed by the Supreme Judicial Council; Notification No F.1(2)2005.A.II dated 15-03-2007 whereby the deponent was sent on compulsory leave with retrospective effect and the constitution and competence of the Supreme Judicial Council as well as the mode and manner of the proceedings before the Council.

This affidavit is being filed in support of the contentions, assertions and pleas raised in the above titled petition. The deponent verifies that the contents of the titled affidavit are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief and nothing has been concealed. In addition to the facts narrated in the titled petition; the deponent states that:

On March 09, 2007, the deponent headed Bench No 1 of this Hon’ble Court as Chief Justice of Pakistan and heard several cases till about 10.30 a.m. The Bench rose briefly and had to reassemble for the day except the deponent who left for the Army House, Rawalpindi to meet the President of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”)

The deponent arrived at Army House, Rawalpindi at about 11-30 a.m. along with his staff/protocol staff. The deponent was shown to a waiting room/visitors room. After five minutes of his arrival, the Respondent, wearing his Military Uniform came into the room along with his MS and ADC. As soon as the Respondent took his seat, a number of TV cameramen and photographers were also ushered into the room. They took several pictures and made movie footage.
While discussing the SAARC Law Conference, SAARC Chief Justices Conference and the concluding session of the Golden Jubilee ceremony of the Supreme Court, the Respondent said that a compliant against the deponent had been received by him (Respondent) from a Judge of the Peshawar High Court. The deponent replied that it was not based on true facts as his case had been decided by a two-member bench and that attempts were being made to maliciously involve the other member of the Bench as well. On this the Respondent said that there are a few more complaints against the deponent as well. After saying so, he directed his staff to call the other persons.

On the direction of the Respondent, the ‘other persons’ entered the room. They included the Prime Minster, DG MI, DG ISI, DG IB, COS and another official. All officials (except DG, IB and COS) were in uniform.

The Respondent started reading from small pieces of paper with notes on them which he had in his hand. There was no single consolidated document. The allegations, which were being put to the deponent had been taken from the contents of a notorious letter written by Mr Naeem Bukhari with absolutely no substance in them. The deponent strongly refuted these allegations as being baseless and engineered to defame him personally and the judiciary as a whole. The deponent promptly denied the veracity and credibility of these allegations as well.

On this the Respondent said that the deponent had obtained cars from the Supreme Court for his family. The allegation was vehemently denied by the deponent. The Respondent went on to say that the deponent was being driven in a Mercedes, to which the deponent promptly replied ‘here is the Prime Minister, ask him, he has sent the Car himself’. The PM did not reply to this answer even by gesture. Surprisingly the Respondent went on to say that the deponent had interfered in the affairs of Lahore High Court and had not accepted and taken heed of most of the recommendations of the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court.

The Respondent insisted that the deponent should resign. The Respondent also said that in case of deponent’s resignation, he (the Respondent) would ‘accommodate’ him (the deponent). He also said in case of refusal to resign, the deponent will have to face the reference which could be a bigger embarrassment for the deponent. The deponent finally and more resolutely said ‘I wouldn’t resign and would face any reference since I am innocent; I have not violated any code of conduct or any law, rule or regulation; I believe that I am myself the guardian of law. I strongly believe in God who will help me’. This ignited the fury of the Respondent; he stood up angrily and left the room along with his MS, COS and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, saying that others would show evidence to the deponent. (This has now been admitted by the Respondent in his interview given to Aaj TV). The meeting continued for not more than 30 minutes.

The DG MI, DG ISI and DG IB remained behind and continued to sit with the deponent. They did not show the deponent a single piece of evidence. In fact, no official except DG ISI had some documents with him but he also did not show any thing to the deponent. They, however, said that the deponent had secured a seat for his son in Bolan Medical College when the deponent was serving as a Judge of Balochistan High Court. They (except DG, IB) insisted that deponent resign while the deponent continued to assert strongly that the allegations were baseless and for a collateral purpose.

During the subsequent hours, the deponent was forced to stay in that room. Sometimes, all the persons would leave the deponent alone in that room but would not allow the deponent to leave it. It was obvious that the deponent was being watched by a close circuit camera because whenever he tried to open the door to go out, he was confronted by an officer who prevented the exit of the deponent; several times the deponent expressed the desire to leave but was told by military officials to stay/wait. Once the deponent was even told that respondent would be seeing him again. At one point, the deponent requested that at least his staff/protocol officer be called inside the room as the deponent wanted to talk to him but was told that he could not come inside. The deponent then requested that his staff/protocol officer be told to pass on the message to the deponent’s family that he was at Army House, Rawalpindi and that his programme to go to Lahore had been cancelled.

Despite several attempts to leave the room and the Army House, the deponent was made to stay there on one pretext or the other. His request to bring his car to the porch for departure was also denied. After the first meeting with the Respondent which lasted for not more than 30 minutes, the deponent was kept there ‘absolutely against his will’ till past 5p.m.

After 5pm, DG MI came in again and told the deponent that his car was outside to drive him ‘home’. DG MI came out of the room and once outside told the deponent, ‘this is a bad day, now you are taking a separate way and you are informed that you have been “restrained to work as a judge of the Supreme Court or Chief Justice of Pakistan”

When the deponent saw the car of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, he discovered that his car had been stripped of both the flag of Pakistan and the emblem flag. The staff officer of the deponent informed him that Mr Justice Javed Iqbal had taken oath as Acting Chief Justice and it had been shown on TV. The driver also informed the deponent that he had been instructed not to take the deponent to the Supreme Court while on way to the residence of the deponent.

While on the way, the deponent directed the driver to go to Supreme Court but an Army official prevented the deponent’s car near the Sports Complex from proceeding further. In the meanwhile, Mr Tariq Masood Yasin, SP, also appeared; He ordered the driver to come out of car so that he could drive the deponent and also asked the deponent’s gunman to come out of the car as well. The deponent said ‘okay, I will not go to the Supreme Court but my driver will drive my car and my gunman will escort me home’. Only then, did Mr Tariq Masood Yasin, SP agree to let the car be driven by deponent’s driver.

The deponent got home at about 5.45 p.m. and was shocked to see police officials and agencies personnel without uniform all over his residence. The deponent also discovered that landline phones had already been disconnected; Cell Phones, TV, Cables and DSL had been jammed or disconnected. The deponent and his family were completely cut off for several days from the outside world.

By 9 p.m., March 09, 2007, the vehicles which were in official use of the deponent including a Mercedes had been taken away by means of a lifter. Latter on, the same night, one vehicle was brought back but the key was not handed over to the deponent or someone on his behalf.

On March 10, 2007, the deponent received a ‘Notice’ from Supreme Judicial Council (”Council”) whereby the deponent came to know that a Reference (No 43/2007) had been filed by the Respondent before the Council. There was also a copy of the Order passed by the Council whereby deponent had been restrained to function as a Judge of the Supreme Court and or Chief Justice of Pakistan. The copy of the aforesaid Reference had also been appended with the Notice with without any annexure or supporting documents for perusal of the deponent.

It was also surprising for the deponent to note that the aforesaid reference came up for hearing on March 9, 2007 after 6 p.m. in indecent haste. Two members of the Council as was evident from news published in daily Nawa-i-Waqt dated March 10, 2007, had been flown to Islamabad in special flights, from Lahore and Karachi simply to participate in a meeting of the Council. In fact, no meeting had been called by the Secretary of the Council namely Mr Faqir Hussain. No one had issued either agenda for the meeting or notice thereof.

The Council, rather than merely scrutinising the material, if at all and serving notice on the deponent (without prejudice to the rights and interest of the deponent as averred in the titled petition), went ahead and passed an order very detrimental to the interests of the deponent as well as the interests of the institution. The deponent was restrained to perform his functions as a Judge of the Supreme Court Judge and or Chief Justice of Pakistan.

The deponent further states that he had been detained along with his family members including his infant child of seven years from the evening of March 9, 2007 till March 13, 2007. The personal and private life of the deponent and his family suffered a great shock and the concept of privacy appeared as if it was an impotent word. The deponent could not use any vehicle since there was none. The deponent had to walk till the other end of the road when the police officer confronted him and manhandled him as has now been established by a judicial enquiry.

The Supreme Court staff attached to the deponent was reportedly missing and had been kept at an unknown place. An attempt was being made to fabricate the evidence through them by coercive means against the deponent. Even other employees working at the residence of the deponent were taken and made to appear before some agency officials. They were released after 2/3 days. The grocery man was not allowed to go to collect grocery; he was made to wait till an agency official accompanied him to the market and back.

The chamber of the deponent was sealed and certain files lying therein were removed and some of them had been handed over to the ISI under the supervision of the newly appointed Registrar. Such an act was contrary to all norms and practices of judiciary. The deponent being the CJP was entitled to occupy his chamber along with his staff.

On account of deployment of heavy contingents, no one was allowed to meet the deponent freely, in as much as his colleagues were not allowed access to meet him. Even a retired judge of this Hon’ble Court Mr Justice (Retd) Munir A Sheikh was not allowed to meet the deponent.

The deponent was not all alone to suffer this agony. Even his children were not allowed to go to school, college and university. The deponent and his family members were deprived of basic amenities of life, i.e. medicines and doctors, etc.

Even when ordered by the Council, the deponent was deprived of the assistance of his counsels to seek legal assistance regarding legal and factual issues involved in the reference. The deponent and his family have been made to go through a lot of mental, physical and emotional agony, torture and embarrassment and words could never be enough to properly and adequately express that.

All these tactics were used to put pressure on the deponent so that he may tender his resignation from the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. But after March 13, 2007 when the deponent succeeded in establishing at least some contact with his lawyers team during a brief appearance before the Council and after March 16, 2007, the on going pressure to ‘resign the office’ was released to some extent.

The deponent now believes that his entire house has been bugged and at the Sindh House which is located right opposite the residence of the deponent, the officials of the agencies other than police have established a place therein to keep an eye on those who come and visit me, etc.

On account of the facts stated hereinabove, the children of the deponents are so scared that they could not go to school or university. As a result thereof, one of my daughters failed to appear in her exams (1st year, Federal Board) whereas my other daughter who is a student of Bahria university is not being allowed to take her examination (1st semester) due to lack of attendance in internal studies. My younger son is also not in a position to attend his school because of circumstances through which I am passing.

Deponent

Verification:

Verified on oath this ___________day of ______________2007 at Islamabad that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information and nothing has been concealed therein from this Hon’ble Court.”

I, Major General Mian Nadeem Ijaz Ahmad son of Late Mian Ijaz Ahmad, presently working as Director General, Military Intelligence (”DG
Ml”), do hereby solemnly state on oath as under:-

1. I was appointed as DG MI on 28 February 2005, and have continued to work in that position ever since.
2. That approximately a fortnight after his appointment as Chief Justice of Pakistan, I received a phone call from Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Chief Justice of Pakistan (on forced leave) (”CJP”). I was a bit surprised. He said that this was a courtesy call. He said that he wanted to visit me at my residence but I suggested that it would be more appropriate if I visited him.
3. The CJP used to telephone me and we exchanged courtesies and pleasantries. Sometimes during 2006 I started visiting him. These visits
4. were often at his request and on a few occasions on my own initiative. I visited him at his residence. It is not possible for me to state the exact number of these visits as we phoned one another frequently and met often.
5. The CJP was comfortable with the officer incharge of the Islamabad Detachment of Ml and insisted that it was necessary for us to remain in constant contact through him. Moreover, the CJP used to remain in regular touch with the officer incharge of Ml at Lahore. He used to task him on a regular basis to provide information on judges in Punjab so he could build a database for his own reference. He also desired that all the detachment incharges in the four provincial capitals must remain in touch with him so that he can have complete information about all the judges.The CJP also asked me if I could facilitate his meeting with DG ISI. He told me that he had been speaking on telephone with DG ISI and insisted that a meeting was necessary. The DG ISI on the insistence of the CJP called on him at his residence.
6. ” Once the CJP phoned me and asked me to come for a discussion. When I went, to see him he started discussing the political situation. He was of the view that the President should dissolve the Assemblies as they were becoming a nuisance and hold elections under the
7. CJP. He wanted me to assure all concerned that he {CJP) will make things very smooth.
8. The CJP was made anxious by adverse media reports. He requested me to look into the matter and assist him in quelling what he regarded was a campaign against him. The Federal Government had also asked me to discretely have the matter examined as the CJP had raised it in his meeting with the President on 13 February 2007.
9. On 7 March 2007 the CJP phoned me. He was concerned about a Reference made against him by Mr. Justice Jehanzeb Rahim of the Peshawar High Court. He told me that I must have a copy of the Reference collected from him the nextmorning. I had that done.
10. On 8 March 2007, at night, the CJP phoned again. He told me that he was going to meet the President on 9 March 2007 at 1130 hours. He said that he intended to raise the Justice Jehanzeb Rahim issue with him. He requested that I be there as well to support him. I shared this with the MS to the President.
11. On 9 March 2007 I was asked by the Presidency to come to a meeting at the Camp Office of the President’s Secretariat. At 1300 hours I, the Chief of Staff to the President, DG ISI and DG IB went to the President’s Chamber at the Camp Office. The President, the Prime Minister and the CJP were already (here. The Military Secretary to the President was also present.
12. That between 1300 hours and 1400 hours the details of the Reference submitted by the Federal Government against the CJP and some of the findings of the intelligence agencies as a result of the exercise’ initiated at the behest of the CJP were discussed. That during the discussion the CJP clearly stated that he would face the Reference.
13. That at 1400 hours the President left for Jumma prayers. The Prime Minister, the Chief of Staff to the President and the Military Secretary to the President also left with him. That thereafter myself, the CJP, DG ISI and DG IB continued our discussion on the various points and all the material and record, in several folders, was available during this time.
14. That nothing discourteous was said by any one during these discussions. The CJP had clearly informed the President and the Prime Minister that he would face the Reference. It was, therefore, not open to any one of us to make any demands on the CJP. No demands were made. The discussion between us was limited to the Reference.
15. That at 1500 hours the DG ISI and the DG IB also left the meeting. The CJP and myself remained there. We further discussed the Reference. After sometime the CJP stated that he wanted to meet the President again and I should facilitate such a meeting. I was told, on inquiry, that after his Jumma prayers the President had gone to the Army House and from there to the airport to fly to Karachi. We waited till the President reached Karachi. It is incorrect that the CJP remained at the Camp Office against his will. The CJP’s view that one more meeting with the President would be beneficial was communicated to the President at Karachi. The President was, however, of the view that no useful purpose would be served as the Reference had already been despatched. That ho had nothing personal against the CJP and he was, in any event, bound to follow the advice of the Prime Minister as per the Constitution. I went with the CJP to see him off to his car. The statements attributed to me by the CJP when I was seeing him off are incorrect. I never said any such thing.

That I have read the affidavits of Lt. Gen. (Retd) Hamid Javaid and Brig. (Retd.) Ijaz Ahmad Shah. This affidavit is in addition thereto.

That unless specifically so admitted nothing contained herein may be deemed an admission of any adverse statement made by the CJP in his affidavit.

That whatever is stated hereinabove is true and correct.

KARACHI (PPI) - Corruption is undermining judicial systems around the world, denying citizens access to justice and the basic human right to a fair and impartial trial, sometimes even to a trial at all, according to the Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption in Judicial Systems issued Thursday by Transparency International, the global coalition against corruption.

“Equal treatment before the law is a pillar of democratic societies. When courts are corrupted by greed or political expediency, the scales of justice are tipped, and ordinary people suffer,” said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International. “Judicial corruption means the voice of the innocent goes unheard, while the guilty act with impunity.”

The new Global Corruption Report concludes that a corrupt judiciary erodes the international community’s ability to prosecute transnational crime and inhibits access to justice and redress for human rights violations.

It undermines economic growth by damaging the trust of the investment community, and impedes efforts to reduce poverty.

Judicial corruption usually falls into two categories: political interference in the judicial process by the legislative or executive branch, and bribery.

The importance of an independent judiciary cannot be overemphasized. Everyone loses when justice is corrupted, in particular the poor, who are forced to pay bribes they cannot afford.

TI’s latest global survey of attitudes towards corruption reveals in more than 25 countries, at least one in ten households had to pay a bribe to get access to justice.

In a further twenty countries, more than three in ten households reported that bribery was involved in securing access to justice or a “fair” outcome in court. In Albania, Greece, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Peru, Taiwan and Venezuela, the figure was even higher.

Petty bribery and political influence in the judiciary erode social cohesion: one system for the rich and another for the poor fractures communities. “If money and influence are the basis of justice, the poor cannot compete,” said Akere Muna, TI’s Vice Chair and president of the Pan African Lawyers’ Union. “Bribery not only makes justice unaffordable; it ruins the capacity of the justice system to fight against corruption and to serve as a beacon of independence and accountability.”

According to a 2002 survey, 96 percent of respondents in Pakistan who had contact with the lower courts had encountered corrupt practices, while in Russia, an estimated US $210 million in bribes is thought to be spent on law courts annually.

Corruption in the judiciary includes any inappropriate influence on the impartiality of judicial proceedings and judgments and can extend to the bribing of judges for favorable decisions, or no decision at all. Judicial corruption includes the misuse of judicial funds and power, such as when a judge hires family members to staff the court or manipulates contracts for court construction and equipment.

It can also play out in biased case allocation and in other pre-trial procedures, such as when bribed court clerks “lose” files and evidence. It can influence any trial or court settlement, and the enforcement - or not - of court decisions and sentences.

The Global Corruption Report 2007 finds that despite decades of reforms to protect judicial independence, the pressure to rule in favor of political interests remains intense.

Though many judges around the world are indeed acting with integrity, problems remain. Erosion of international standards is evident in countries such as Argentina and Russia, where political powers have increased their influence over the judicial process in recent years.

And for judges who refuse to be compromised, political retaliation can be swift and harsh. Unfair or ineffective procedures to discipline and remove corrupt judges can end up being used instead for the removal of independent judges. In Algeria, judges considered too independent are transferred to remote locations. In Kenya, as part of an anti-corruption campaign that was widely perceived as politically expedient, judges were pressured to step down without being told of the allegations against them.

Failure to appoint judicial officials on merit can lead to the selection of a pliant, corruptible judiciary. “Problematic” judges can be reassigned or have sensitive cases transferred to more pliable judges, a tactic used by former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori.

Interference from politicians or civil servants can also buy “legal” cover for embezzlement, nepotism, cronyism and illegal political decisions. Such interference can be as blatant as physical threats and intimidation, and as subtle as the manipulation of judicial appointments, salaries and conditions of service.

Bribery, the other dark thread of judicial corruption, can occur throughout the fabric of the judicial process. As 32 country reports in the Global Corruption Report demonstrate, judges may accept bribes to delay or accelerate cases, accept or deny appeals, influence other judges or simply to decide a case in a certain way.

Court officials may seek bribes for services that should be free; lawyers may charge additional “fees” to expedite or delay cases, or to direct clients to judges known to take bribes. Factors affecting a judge’s susceptibility include but are not limited to poor salaries. Insecure working conditions, including unfair promotion and transfer processes and a lack of continuous training, make judges and other court personnel vulnerable to bribery.

Opaque court processes that foster bribery can also prevent the media and civil society from monitoring court activity and exposing judicial corruption.

Solutions: independence, openness, adequate resources, accountability. No single solution will effectively tackle these problems. But a menu of solutions offers a holistic approach.

The Global Corruption Report 2007 offers detailed recommendations to promote judicial independence and accountability, encourage individual integrity, more effective enforcement of the law and to safeguard the judiciary against political influence. Judicial and prosecutorial appointments and removals must be transparent, independent of the executive and legislative branches, and based on experience and performance. Journalists must be free to monitor and comment on legal proceedings, reporting reliable information on laws, proposed changes in legislation, court procedures and judgments to the public.

Civil society’s oversight role is imperative. By monitoring and commenting on the selection of judges, judicial codes of conduct and the discipline of judges, how courts handle cases and how judges make decisions, civil society can call attention to systemic weaknesses that facilitate corruption, and put governments on notice that they will be called to account for making good on their anti-corruption commitments.

Transparency International offers detailed recommendations to strengthen judicial independence and fight judicial corruption, including judicial appointments:

1. An independent judicial appointments body should be at the heart of the judicial selection process.
2. Judicial appointments should be merit-based, with clear and well publicized election criteria; candidates should be required to demonstrate a record of competence and integrity.
3. Civil society, including professional associations linked to judicial activities, should be consulted on the merits of candidates.

Terms and conditions

4. Judicial salaries should reflect experience, performance and professional development; fair pensions should be provided on retirement.
5. Protections to safeguard salaries and working conditions against interference by the executive and legislature branches should be established.
6. Judicial transfers should be based on objective criteria to protect independent and impartial judges. Accountability and discipline
7. Judges should receive limited immunity for actions relating to judicial duties.
8. Allegations against judges should be rigorously investigated, including by an independent body.
9. The removal process should be transparent and fair, with strict and exacting standards; if there is a finding of corruption, a judge should be liable to prosecution.

Transparency

10. The judiciary should provide the public with reliable information about activities and spending.
11. Access to information on laws, proposed changes in legislation, court procedures, judgments, judicial vacancies and appointments is needed.
12. The prosecution must conduct judicial proceedings in public and publish reasons for decisions.

[ratings]

But before I spill my story of that day, let me confess to a state of consternation. I am temporarily seized by the arrangement of the honorable judge’s quotations and their placement. He is an influential judge, daily making headline news. So what tone and voice does one employ? Should I tell it straight as it came from the horse’s mouth (excuse the awful cliché) or hem and haw and hide behind journalistic gobbledygook?

It would be an injustice to Justice Ramday if I place him beyond the pale of human experience, etherized him as a judge whose heart and soul must not be touched. On the contrary, generous with his personal narrative, the judge provided us a multi-dimensional view of his diverse background, the telling feature being that he was comfortable sharing his life story just like any other human who himself tells about who he is, and why.

As I begin to assemble a portrait of the judge — very much a product of the society in which we live today — the contrarians among us may well ask why the pressing need to know Justice Ramday. Fair question. The persona of a judge — his intellectual pursuits, mannerisms, attitudes, interests and life outside the purview of the court — helps us frame our personal beliefs by correlating his legal arguments with his personal characteristics rather than legal precedents that he may cite. Our opinions can be over simplistic or too nuanced, fiercely dramatic or cloyingly pious, but at least we would have tried entering the judicial monastery where no ordinary mortal dare wander. Is this argument too dense? Too tangled? Okay, let me try a simpler route and come right to the point with an exclusive insight of what I’m trying to present.

Justice Ramday joked, smiled, listened, spoke as if he was one of us and not above us. A flesh and blood kind of man one can dialogue with. His moral compass pointed in the right direction; his spiritual reach was authoritative; his knowledge of Islam and other religions far-reaching. The audience, wary at first (aren’t we all scared to even approach our lordships for fear of contempt of court?) drawn by his sincerity of purpose, gravitated towards Justice Ramday. Having suffered over bloated, half-literate and unsavory ‘chief guests’ who are never on time, Justice Ramday was sophisticatedly humble and intellectually principled. And very punctual.

On the dais, he sat not nitpicking panelists, but wanting to be enlightened. He heard with rapt attention what Air Marshal Nur Khan said about the end of Musharraf’s army rule and the beginning of democracy; he introduced the former interior secretary Tasneem Noorani as the “most handsome bureaucrat he’d seen”; he appreciated MNA Meenu Bhandara’s bid to re-launch his amended bill on blasphemy; he complimented his host Ambassador Iftikhar Murshed for his excellent journal the Criterion; and he gave us a patient hearing when the audience instead of asking short questions engaged in dialectics.

Singling out two “great teachers” Justice Ramday spoke adoringly of Khwaja Masud and Nasrullah Malik sitting in the front row. “But for teachers like them, people like me wouldn’t be here today.” His appreciation was genuine, not symbolic, just as his interest in what we had to say was real not routine.

He reminisced of his college days, some 40 years back. Earlier parliamentarian Fauzia Wahab of PPP had mentioned her university days in Karachi and how girl students were free to roam around the campus. Justice Ramday joked about having missed all that fun for being in the “wrong place at the wrong time.” He told us that he went to Gordon College, Rawalpindi, and was not allowed to talk to girls: “We had a notice saying, ‘Anybody talking to a girl will be fined Rs10.’” The underlying humor was contagious and the audience began to relax, no longer awestruck by the presence of a judge presiding over 24 petitions challenging the presidential reference against the CJ.

Ms Wahab lamented the beard and burqa invading our culture. Dispelling her fears, Justice Ramday said the beard is not the sole identity of Muslims. The Jews, Christians and Sikhs too sport beards. “A beard is not the kind of curse we take it to be.” Similarly, he said, we shouldn’t “look down” upon women who cover their faces. He mentioned traveling the countryside in India and found Hindu women bent in veils coming down to their ankles.

Without naming the clergy, he said we should not rely on other people’s “eyes and ears” to interpret religion. “In legal and judicial terms we discard such people as ‘interested witnesses’ because there’s a motive attached to their evidence.” Allah has made the study of our Holy Book so easy: “Treat it like an owner’s manual, a guide.” Just as a manual informs the owner how to operate the machine, “the Creator and the Manufacturer of man has given him the Holy Quran as a manual which guides man how to live.”

Irrespective of Zia’s “ideology”, the judge said he gives credit to the general for introducing religion to the masses. “He gave Islam respectability… I remember I was in Gordon College in those days. My father would force me to offer my prayers,” said Justice Ramday who today has a mehrab on his forehead.

As one deeply interested in other religions, Justice Ramday rightly observes: “What does the Old Testament, the Bible, Vedas, the Wheel of Life with 8 spokes, Jainism, Buddhism and all other scriptures speak of? They show the path for man to be a human; how to attain nirvana and salvation.” Every soul worries about “accountability and stock taking… reward and punishment in the life hereafter.” The venerable judge is aware of the ‘Day of Judgment’ hovering over all of us. He recently rebuffed Malik Qayyum saying that the Supreme Judicial Council was not above the apex court: Will a judge wait for the Day of Judgment to get justice, he asked the counsel defending the government?

As an ardent advocate of interfaith dialogue, he says “this planet would be worth a life if a Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Christian irrespective of his faith is above all a good human being.”

Calling people who attack each other “narcissists” Justice Ramday gives a parable (dare one draw political parallels here?) of two people traveling to Lahore via two different routes — the Motorway and the GT Road. Instead of “slitting each other’s throats” saying their route was “better” wouldn’t it be civil if both the feuding parties eschewed their differences and said to each other: “I wish you good luck. Follow the rules. Be careful with your speed.”

All rise for Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday.

[ratings]