No compromise on judiciary’s prestige: IHC

ISLAMABAD: Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) here Wednesday directed Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra) to forward ‘code of conduct’ to all media channels and the channels which violated the same, their licences might be cancelled.

Justice Siddiqui was hearing the writ petition of Shuhada Foundation of Pakistan Trust (SFPT) that it had filed against the ARY television channel for airing defamatory programmes against the superior judiciary judges. It was on June 11 when the same court through an interim order directed Pemra to ensure that “Mubasher Lucman shall not be allowed to conduct any programme on any TV channel till final decision of the instant writ petition”. The said order was later vacated by the Supreme Court (SC).

While hearing the matter, IHC judge observed that “ridiculing judiciary is tantamount to violation of the Constitution and no compromise could be made on prestige of the judicial institutions”. IHC judge further remarked that the judiciary was being criticised without any reason; if anyone had an objection or complaint against a judge, he could file the matter before Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). If a television channel aired a ‘Qawwali,’ five other channels also did the same. Justice Siddiqui remarked that there was a censor board for the films but no censor board for the television dramas and advertisements. In advertisements, there was much being aired for the sale of different items.

During last hearing, IHC bench had noted in its order “Let secretary ministry of information, Islamabad and Pemra chairman be directed to appear in person to explain as to whether there is any code of conduct for electronic media and anchorpersons who found ridiculing the institutions of country like judiciary, Army and other sensitive institutions and how many complaints have been filed against such persons and TV channels and what action has been taken so far.”

In compliance with the court orders, Pemra chairman and secretary ministry of information was there in the court today.

SEPT petitioner while nominating federation through secretary ministry of information, secretary ministry of interior, Pemra chairman, Ammad Khalid of Geo TV Channel, and Anchor ARY TV Channel Mubasher Luqman as respondents has contended before the court that some anchors particularly Mubasher Luqman are conducting such programmes which are prejudicial to the integrity, honour, respect and independence of the superior judiciary.

The petitioner contended that the Pemra had taken no substantial steps to implement a previous court order and Mubasher Luqman on the ARY TV channel was continuing extending the campaign against former chief justice (R) Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and judges of Supreme Court particularly Justice Jawwad S Khawaja in a clandestine manner.IHC bench after issuing the above order put off hearing in this matter till July 9.

IHC summons Pemra’s acting chief on June 9

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has summoned the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority’s acting chairman on June 9 over a plea of a private member of the authority.

Mian Shams, the private member, filed a petition with the IHC, calling the Pemra’s Friday meeting a violation of the court orders. The authority, in a meeting attended by only government members, on Friday suspended the licence of the Geo News for 15 days and imposed a fine of Rs 10 million over a complaint of the defence ministry.

Pemra member Israr Abbasi, after announcement of the decision, said the government had interfered in the functioning of the authority. He said the Pemra members were intimidated, adding that the decision would be challenged in the court. He called the Pemra meeting held on Friday illegal.

Ex-CIA station chief be booked for murder: IHC

 

ISLAMABAD: Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday directed the Secretariat Police Station to register a murder case against former CIA station chief in Islamabad Jonathan Banks and former CIA General Counsel John A Rizzo in the matter pertaining to Kareem Khan, a resident of North Waziristan Agency (NWA), after his brother and a son died in a drone strike in 2009.
While hearing the matter, Justice Siddiqui inquired the Secretariat Police Station SHO whether any cognizable offence was committed or not. The SHO said that the offence was cognizable but it was not in the territorial jurisdiction of Islamabad Police.

Justice Siddiqui then said, “If a cognizable offence was committed, you must act as per law,” and disposed of the matter.Kareem Khan, a resident of North Waziristan Agency, had lost his teenage son Zahinullah and a brother Asif Iqbal who was a primary school teacher in Mir Ali, in a drone strike on December 31, 2009. While proceeding in this matter, Kareem Khan also remained missing for 10 days after he was allegedly picked up by the security agencies on February 5, 2014 from Rawalpindi when he was goingto narrate his woes before the European Parliament on February 15.

Kareem Khan, a native of Machi Khel, Mir Ali, North Waziristan, had filed an application for FIR with the Secretariat Police Station in 2010.The Secretariat Police refused to lodge the FIR and Kareem Khan then filed a case under Section 22-A with the civil court of Islamabad while praying that the police might be directed to register the FIR.

A civil judge of Islamabad dismissed the application in December 2013 citing lack of jurisdiction as the reason. The civil judge had observed that the attack was carried out in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) of Pakistan and hence the Islamabad court could not assume jurisdiction in this matter.

The petitioner then filed an appeal with the IHC and the same court while hearing in the matter on February 10, 2014 referred the matter to civil judge once again. But the civil judge refused to issue an order in favour of Kareem Khan citing lack of jurisdiction.

Kareem Khan then filed an appeal before the IHC that was heard on Thursday with directions to register cases against Jonathan Banks and John A Rizzo.Mirza Shahzad Akbar, advocate, represented Khan in the court and argued that the drone strike was carried out in North Waziristan but the FIR could not be registered as the CIA station chief was based in Islamabad. He further argued that the decision of civil judge dismissing the application on account of territorial jurisdiction was misconceived while under the Pakistani law, the FIR could be registered.

After the court’s decision, Akbar through a press release said, “There is no doubt under Pakistani and international law that the US officials are committing murder through drone strikes in Pakistan and today’s decision simply vindicates this very point as after this order, all those who have been killed in drone strikes have a right to proceed in similar criminal actions against the CIA officials and others involved. This remarkable order also highlights the strength of independence of judiciary in Pakistan which is truly protecting the rights of citizens of Pakistan under the Constitution”.

IHC declares regularisation of daily wage, contract employees void

 

ISLAMABAD: Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday declared null and void recommendations of the former PPP government’s cabinet subcommittee, headed by Syed Khursheed Shah, for the regularisation of daily wage and contract employees of the federal government.
Justice Siddiqui, in his decision, observed that the recommendations regarding the employees who were appointed without following rules and competitive process carry no weight. He directed all the institutions/organisations of the federal government to properly examine and verify the record of the regularised employees and only endorse regularisation of those employees who fulfil the criteria in respect of educational qualification, experience, age and domicile.

The petition was filed in the court by the senior employees of National Highways Authority (NHA), seeking de-regularisation of contractual and daily wage employees who were regularised by the former government’s cabinet subcommittee.

Counsel for the NHA employees Tariq Mehmood Jehangiri argued before the court that all these employees were first appointed at nepotism basis in complete disregard to educational qualification, age, experience, domicile and vacant posts. These employees were inducted without any test or interview, and later the cabinet’s subcommittee recommended their regularisation. The committee’s decision has been affecting the seniority of previous employees.

Jehangiri produced a list of around 350 employees before the court and told the court around 90 people in this list belong to Multan, 60 to Sukkur and the rest to the electoral constituencies of some other MNAs of the former PPP government.

Jehngiri further told the court that the NHA has been paying Rs12 billion per annum on account of salaries to these persons. The Rs12 billion is taken from the amount that the NHA had to spend for road development.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, Jehangiri said that the Supreme Court, in the case of Employee Old Age Benefits on March 17 this year, had declared the appointments of 238 employees as null and void. For the recently regularised employees, no posts were created before their induction.

The defence counsel counter argued that if the cabinet subcommittee’s recommendations were declared null and void, thousands of workers would get unemployed. Justice Siddiqui remarked that we have buried the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ and everything should be done on merit.

IHC and LHC dismiss petitions against Geo News

ISLAMABAD/LAHORE: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) and Lahore High Court (LHC) dismissed petitions against Geo News and the channels senior anchors on Friday.

The IHC dismissed a petition which called for a treason case against Geo News and its senior anchors and the cancelation of the channels license. The IHC stated that the petition was non-maintainable.

The petition called for the federation, PEMRA, Geo management, Ansar Abbasi, Najam Sethi, Idrees Bakhtiar, Muneeb Farooq, Imtiaz Alam, Iftikhar Ahmad, Umar Cheema, Dr. Aamir Liaquat Hussain, Asma Shirazi and Amir Mir to become parties in the case.

The petition filed by a local journalist maintained that Geo management, Geo anchors, Amir Mir and private channel anchor Asma Shirazi disgraced the army during a transmission and should be tried for high-treason. The petition also called for the cancellation of Geo’s license.

Meanwhile, the LHC also dismissed a petition against the Jang/Geo group filed by the anchor of a private news channel.

During proceedings Justice Ejazul Hasan remarked that the petitioner had not read article 6 of the constitution which states that the petition should be submitted to the federal government. The constitution outlines procedures for a treason case, Justice Ejaz remarked. He further said that this court was not the appropriate forum for these charges.

Justice Ejaz told the petitioner that he was not an affected party as the allegations had been leveled against the ISI in the case, adding that the Defence Minister and federal government had already taken notice. Justice Ejaz further said that a judicial commission had been formed and its report should be waited for.

Non-appointment of HEC chairman a slap for judicial system: IHC

ISLAMABAD: Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) observed on Monday that the failure to appoint the Higher Education Commission (HEC) chairman was a slap on the face of the judicial system.

He issued an order to appoint the HEC chairman in 15 days. “If the government fails to appoint the chairman within the stipulated time, a Pandora’s box about a rift between ministers will open up in the court,” the judge stated. “The names of those who are presently behind the curtains will be revealed.”

The secretary education told the court that the prime minister, after rejecting the summary for the appointment of HEC chairman, had formed a new committee. The IHC remarked that the HEC chairman couldn’t be appointed in nine months despite an assurance from the government, and the situation posed a challenge to the judicial system. He further said the treatment meted out to the country’s largest educational body reflected the pathetic state of affairs of national institutions.

IHC stays illegal promotions, transfers in IB

 

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday stayed the ‘illegal transfers and promotions’ in the Intelligence Bureau (IB) besides seeking a reply from the agency’s director general (DG), according to Online.
A single bench of the IHC, comprising Justice Noorul Haq Qureshi, also stayed the meeting of the IB’s Central Selection Board (CSB) to be held today (Wednesday) to take decisions about the promotions and transfers of officers.

Justice Qureshi passed these orders after petitioner Muhammad Arif Zulqarnain, Deputy Director IB, contended before the court that the CSB was going to promote blue-eyed junior officers from Grade 18 to 19 only six days before the DG IB, who will chair the CSB, was to retire.

The IHC bench directed the IB and the Establishment Division to submit para wise comments within a fortnight with observations that the high court could not determine seniority of an official.

The petitioner, through his counsel Hafiz Arfat Ahmad Chaudhry, adopted before the court the IB senior administration through its CSB was going to promote junior officers into Grade 19 while ignoring the seniority list.

The petitioner alleged that the DG IB, who is going to retire on April 02, 2014, was going to grant premature promotions to some blue-eyed persons from BPS-18 to BPS-19 in an extraordinary and unusual haste, ignoring seniority of the petitioner that was illegal.

The petitioner contended that he had an excellent academic background. He joined the IB on June 26, 2001 as Assistant Director in BPS-17 through the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) and was placed at serial No2 on the seniority list determined by the FPSC. There is no adverse report that has ever been issued against the petitioner. Rather, he has always been appreciated by his superiors and in 2006 he was promoted to BPS-18.

He said in order to get further elevation to the post of director in BPS-19, it is mandatory for an official to have a minimum 12 years of service besides completing the mandatory promotional courses.

The petitioner made a request to his higher authorities in the year 2009 to send him for mandatory promotional courses so that his case could be placed before the CSB but the request was not accepted due to his engagement in sensitive and important official assignments.

However, all batch-mates of the petitioner and several junior officers were sent to attend the courses that they completed in due time. This “discriminatory policy” will eventually lead to denial of promotion to the petitioner. The petitioner contended it was evident from the record that it was the decision of the higher authorities not to send him on promotional courses for over four years and no fault could be attributed to the petitioner in this regard.

After numerous requests of the petitioner, he has been nominated for the promotional course which is going to conclude on April 11, 2014, enabling him for consideration for promotion as director in BPS-19. The petitioner contended that he had learnt that the respondents were going to hold a meeting of the CSB on March 26, 2014 promoting their favourites. The petitioner immediately moved a departmental representation but received no response thereto. The act of the respondents is based on ‘patent malafide’ and the same grossly contradicts the fundamental rights of the petitioner, he contended.

The petitioner told the court that despite his best efforts, he could not procure necessary documents from his department for the assistance of this court. The petitioner has been denied access to the concerned documents, including the seniority list.

He claimed being the senior-most officer currently serving in BPS-18. The petitioner prayed to the court to direct the respondents to hold a meeting of the CSB for grant of promotion from BPS-18 to BPS-19 after completion of ongoing Mid Career Management Course that is going to conclude on April 11, 2014.The court will take up this matter after the respondents submit their comments.

IHC summons DG ISI in missing person’s case

 

ISLAMABAD: Justice Riaz Ahmad Khan of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) here on Monday summoned Director General (DG) of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directing him to appear before the court in the matter of a missing person, Muhammad Arif.
Parveen Bibi, the wife of Muhammad Arif, a resident of Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi, had filed a petition with the court.The petitioner told the court that last month her husband, accompanied by three others, was going to condole the death of a friend with his bereaved family when all the four were allegedly picked up by the ISI officials.

The petitioner said that all the four were picked up from Khushab while the agency released two, keeping Arif and another person in their custody. The two released men later told their relatives that they were picked up by the ISI.

Citing Ministry of Interior and DG ISI as respondents, Perveen Bibi in February this year filed a habeas corpus petition for the recovery of her missing husband.On the first hearing of the petition, the same IHC bench had issued notices to the respondents and directed them to submit their reply.

It was during last week, when the IHC bench had directed the spy agency to trace the whereabouts of the missing person and intimate the court with directions to the DG ISI for deputing a responsible official who would apprise the court of the progress in this matter.

Taking up the matter here Monday, Justice Riaz Ahmad Khan was informed by a standing counsel, Raja Khalid, that the Interior Ministry was seeking six weeks time for submitting a report regarding the whereabouts of the missing, Arif. The IHC bench however dismissed the contention and observed that the matter was related to the liberty of a citizen.

As the ISI had not deputed an official in accordance with the IHC directives, IHC bench directed the DG ISI to appear in person on next date of hearing.

Separately in another matter, an IHC bench vacated a stay order against a Statutory Regulatory Order (SRO) permitting the employees of other provinces to serve in the federal secretariat. The officers of the Secretariat Group had petitioned against the SRO contending that the induction of officers from other provinces would affect their seniority. However, after hearing the arguments, the court rejected the petition and restored the SRO issued by the federal government.