The Supreme Court extended the injunction barring the Audiolex Commission from operating while deferring a decision on the government’s request for a bench change against the commission.
During the hearing on the petitions against the alleged Audiolex Inquiry Commission, Pakistan’s Chief Justice Umar Attabandyal stated that he had heard all parties and would consider the petition.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice stated that he was available but was not informed about the formation of the Audio Leaks Inquiry Commission, and that the commission was formed without his knowledge.
During the hearing of the petitions against the alleged Audiolex Inquiry Commission, the Chief Justice stated that the position of Chief Justice of Pakistan is a constitutional post, assuming that no one else can use the Chief Justice’s charge.
Government submission The Attorney General’s arguments are finished.
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan raised objections on behalf of the government from the bench, Attorney General Mansoor Usman read out the objections from the bench, Chief Justice Umar Attabandial said that you are missing one thing, give arguments on these issues.
Attorney General Mansoor Usman stated, “I will make arguments on the composition of the first bench,” to which the Chief Justice responded, “Are you going to the point where three of us judges are controversial?” Then you must explain why the assumption of three judges is controversial; the second and most important issue is the judiciary’s independence. I’d like you to do something more important.
The Attorney General read out the AudioLeaks Commission’s Terms of Reference. The Attorney General stated that the leaked audios involved the mother-in-law of a Chief Justice. “Is your case at this time that the audios are correct in hindsight?” Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked. According to the Attorney General, the federal government has only recently been formed.
What was the purpose of the interior minister’s press conference?
Justice Muneeb Akhtar asked if the federal government was unaware whether the audios were certified or not. Is it not true that the interior minister held a press conference on these audios, some audios were also played in the press conference, is it correct that those who do not know the truth about the audios should raise objections on the bench, I will accept your request. I’m requesting to be heard.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar went on to ask why the interior minister held a press conference. Can such irresponsibility be tolerated? The minister would have been fired or fired after making such a statement.
Can a minister’s statement be called the statement of the entire government; the Attorney General asked the court? I’m not sure if a press conference was held. The court should determine whether the interior minister’s statement was made before or after May 19. Justice Muneeb Akhtar stated that if the minister mentions drinking tea, the statement here is an important issue, and the cabinet should have come forward on such an important issue.
He mocked the judges at first, then stated that they are now investigating the authenticity of the videos.
“Wow, what a beautiful method, and what justice has been done to the judiciary?” said the Chief Justice. He mocked the judges at first, then stated that they are now investigating the authenticity of the videos.
Justice Muneeb Akhtar remarked that recording an audio will be very simple for the judge who wishes to be removed from the case.
Who planted the recordings?
According to Chief Justice Umar Attabandial, the question is who planted the audios. Did the government try to figure out who was responsible? The Attorney General stated that the federal government wishes to conclude this matter; the government will also investigate this matter through the commission.
How were the calls recorded, according to the Attorney General? The commission will examine the factors. This situation is still in its early stages. These audios, according to the federal government, are still alleged audios. The cabinet should see the federal government’s statement. Furthermore, a minister’s personal statement is not the government’s statement.
A judge cannot be named as a defendant in a contempt proceeding.
Earlier, petitioner Hanif Rahi told the court, “My contempt of court petition has not yet received a number,” to which the Chief Justice replied, “If there are any objections to your petition, then remove it,” adding that the contempt matter is between the court and the person insulting. Who do you want contempt proceedings brought against? A judge cannot be named as a defendant in a contempt proceeding.
It should be noted that the case is being heard by a 5-member larger bench led by Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial and consisting of Justice Ejazul Hassan, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Shahid Waheed.
