It said that it would scrutinise all costs with the help of a team of professional engineers, and financial and legal experts. The SNGPL had filed its petition on November, 30 2006 under section 8(1) of Ogra Ordinance 2002 and Rule-4(2) of Natural Gas Tariff Rules 2002 for determination of estimated revenue requirement for FY 2007-08 stating that there was a surplus of Judicial Council.
Council for the petitioner Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan told a news conference that the Supreme Court has fixed the petition for hearing at 9.30 am on Thursday. He said through the petition under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution before his own court, Justice Iftikhar has sought to challenge the Reference dated 09.03.2007, the Notification dated 09.03.2007, whereby he was suspended.
Notifications of Acting Chief Justices and Notification dated 15.03.2007 whereby he was sent on forced leave and competence of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) and the mode and manner of the proceedings before it.
The President of Pakistan as the Referring Authority and the SJC have been named as respondents. The petition is divided into Four Sections: Questions of Law, the facts of the case, the grounds for the Petition and the Relief being sought.
In the first Section on Questions of Law the Chief Justice has raised as many as 132 questions of the constitution and the law that need to be settled by the Supreme Court.
These relate respectively to the Competence of the SJC to try the Chief Justice of Pakistan; the constitution of the SJC without the CJP; the personal bias and prospects of advancement of some of the members of the Council; Mala fides and collateral purpose of the referring authority and the Prime Minister; unholy haste with which the referring authority and the CJP acted; illegal suspension and forced leave; illegal assumption of office of acting CJ; the executive assault on the independence of the judiciary; camera proceedings vs open trial.
In the second Section on Relevant Facts the Chief Justice has narrated the salient events of his career as Chief Justice including the events of 9th March 2007 as well as the major cases that he had actively presided over to give relief to the poor defenceless citizen whereby he incurred the intense displeasure and ire of the Prime Minister, the Referring Authority and of many of their close associates.
He took notice of more than 6,000 cases of Human Rights abuse in the length and breadth of the country, set aside the privatisation of the Pakistan Steel Mills, began inquiring into the land allotments to influential people in Gawadar, restrained environmental degradations by such projects as New Murree, prevented parks from being converted into commercial enterprises such as CDA Mini Golf Course and the Multiplex Commercial Venture in Gulberg, Lahore sought information about hundreds of persons who have disappeared and are missing and whose relatives were daily demonstrating outside the Supreme Court.
The few landmark examples that the Chief Justice indeed mentions include cases involving:
1.Police excesses in such cases as Sonia Naz, Nazoia, Rasool Bux Brohi, Shahnaz Fatima, Torture Cells;
2.Jirga cases in which infant girls were given in marriages, vani cases, Watta satta case;
3.Abductions of Manoo Bheel's family in which one Abdur Rehman Brohi, close associate of Pir Pagara was arrested;
4.Minor children were freed from private jails; even in Balochistan more than 41 children were recovered through IG Balochistan;
5.Cases of forcible conversion to Islam;
6.Cases wherein influential convicts had been released on parole contrary to law, were taken notice of;
7.IGs and SSPs were put to task in all provinces to protect human rights.
8.Deteriorating Law & Order throughout the Court was taken notice of and constant instructions were given to chief Secretaries and IGs besides other law enforcing agencies;
9.Important petitions pending or decided included the followings:
i. Petitions about uniform of the President and his re-election;
ii. Petitions challenging the office of the President which were likely to be taken up in March and the government was well aware of it;
iii. Petition against the privatisation of Habib Bank;
iv. Petition against the privatisation of PTCL;
v. Petition about the regulation of petrol prices;
vi. Basant killings (even an Ordinance was passed against this judgement);
vii. No meal on wedding and its enforcement;
viii. Sales of spurious medicines;
ix. Preservation and reconstruction of the West Wing of the Lahore High Court demolished under the administration of the CJ LHC;
x. Environment related issues, including the restraints on the elitist:
-- New Murree Project;
-- The conversion of a public park into an exclusive mini golf course in Islamabad;
-- The conversion of a cricket ground into a commercial plaza in Gulberg Lahore.
The Petitioner was thus providing relief where all other avenues and officials / persons mandated to give relief had failed. Although he merely performed his duty by his conscience, it may also be added that petitioner has been appreciated for his active, independent initiatives at home and abroad.
In the third Section on the Ground providing the basis for the Petitions the Chief Justice while elaborating his objections about the Competence and Constitution of the Supreme Judicial Council; the Personal Bias and Prospects of Advancement of some of the members of the Council; Mala fides and Collateral Purpose of the Referring Authority and the Prime Minister; unholy haste; Illegal Suspension and Forced Leave; Illegal Assumption of Office be Acting CJ; Independence of the Judiciary; Camera Proceedings Vs. Open Trial; and Further Insidious Implication s further details the personal interest, bias and prejudice harboured by the three members of the SJC in specific details including:
a. Mr Justice Javed Iqbal because: (according to the petitioners allegations) the removal of the Petitioner from the office of Chief Justice will open up the prospects of Mr Justice Javed Iqbal becoming the permanent Chief for a term of more than three years.
He thus has a very substantial economic and financial stake in the ouster of the Petitioner. He accordingly rushed to take oath as Acting Chief Justice and celebrated the occasion even as the Chief Justice of Pakistan (the Petitioner) was still detained in Rawalpindi in the office of the Referring Authority.
He obtained admission for two of his daughters, Ayesha Javed and Qaiser Javed, against special seats in the Bolan Medical College despite having failed to qualify for admission on merit but he has not been prosecuted.
Nor has a Reference been filed against him for getting a better job, against the Rules for his son-in-law. An undue keenness to oust the Petitioner was also shown in the haste with which the meeting of the Council was called by him on 9th March after office hours and purporting to procure a quorum as well as the presence of the Attorney General at the meeting.
He has also already, and publicly declared on the national and international media, that all steps that have been taken with regard to the Reference and the composition of the Council have been in accordance with the Constitution.
This amounts to prejudging the entire issue as the Petitioner has, from day one, disputed the legality and steps of all the actions taken so far. The amounts to "prejudice". This alone disqualifies him from sitting on the Council.
b. Mr Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar because: (according to petitioners allegations) A Reference / complaint is pending against him concerning the alleged misappropriation of funds of the Shah Abdul Latif Bhitai University, Khairpur, That is already on the record of the Council.
c. Mr Justice Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, because: (according to the petitioners allegations)
d. He has developed a strong and settled hostility towards the Petitioner which is widely known to members of the Bar and the Bench. Because of this state of settled ill-will he does not expect to be elevated to the Supreme Court, and thereby to add another three years to his judicial career at a higher salary and emoluments after the expiry of his tenure as Chief Justice / Judge High Court if the Petitioner remains CJP. His own elevation to the Supreme Court was refused by the Petitioner in August 2005.
Several references / complaints against him are pending and these were entertained by the Petitioner as CJP. In fact he was one the prime movers behind the Reference. He has, unfortunately, not even been on talking terms with the Petitioner.
Nor do they even shake hands. Such has been the open display of hostility by him that even when the Petitioner, as CJP, visited the Punjab Bar Council at its invitation, he as CJ LHC, instructed all his Judges not to attend the function.
Accordingly none did. Such indeed is his hostility towards the Petitioner that the CJ LHC went so far as to issue unprecedented directions to the entire subordinate judiciary throughout Punjab to dismiss the petitions / plaints of all lawyers who failed to appear on 16-3-2007 the days on which the Bar Associations had called for a strike to protest the manhandling of the CJP at the hands of the local Police.
Not only that he also issued directions that the courts were not to restore any case dismissed on any such day. The Petitioner seeks that the judges concerned therefore are disqualified to sit in the proceedings in the light of para 1 of Article IV of the Code of Conduct of Judges which categorically directs that:
"A judge must decline resolutely to act in a case involving his own interest." In fact their insistence, asserts the Chief Justice, to continue on the Council will further reinforce the belief that they have a settled and inherent interest and prejudice in a certain outcome of the Reference which they want to ensure by personally remaining on the Council. Otherwise it would only be natural for them to say (as Judges do so often every day)" Not before me".
The Petitioner has also mentioned a large number of judgements from Pakistani UK, Indian, US and Australian jurisdiction which require Judges to refrain from sitting on the slightest suspicion of bias or personal interest and pointed out that courts all over the civilised world have zero tolerance for biased judges.
The Chief Justice has also sounded a world of caution in his Petition. "To hold the petition as not deserving relief will, he warns, amount to judicial suicide. This is not being pedantic but forthright. If a power to file a Reference and immediately to suspend the Judge are allowed to the Executive, the entire edifice of the independence of the judiciary will crumble like a house of cards.
He finally declares that "he denies the charges contained in the Reference. He has served the Court, Pakistan and its people with honesty and without fear or favour.
He is absolutely innocent and seeks an open public trial by an impartial, non-biased and legally competent forum with full opportunity to obtain the record required for his defence an to lead evidence in his defence. That is his fundamental right under the Constitution."
In conclusion the Chief Justice seeks 16 relief from the Supreme Court including the following that the Court. Declare that no Reference can be filed by the Referring Authority or examined by the SJC against the Chief Justice of Pakistan under Article 209 of the Constitution; nor can the Supreme Judicial Council inquire into the conduct of, or to try, the CJP.
Declare that the Supreme Judicial Council cannot be lawfully constituted in the absence of the Chief Justice of Pakistan and an Acting Chief Justice cannot preside over the SJC in his stead; Declare, as such, that the Supreme Judicial Council otherwise constituted (as it purports to be) is coram non judice and without lawful authority; Declare that the Reference is mala fide and for a collateral purpose; Declare that the orders purporting to restrain the Petitioner from performing his functions or purporting to send him on forced leave are without lawful authority; Declare accordingly that the appointment of any other Judge as Acting Chief Justice of Pakistan is illegal and without lawful authority. Direct, therefore, the SJC and the other concerned respondents by means of a permanent injunction, to refrain from hearing the Reference in question; Declare, in any case and without prejudice, that no person who harbours, or against whom the Petitioner has sufficient reason to allege personal bias against the Petitioner, can remain a member of the Supreme Judicial Council; Declare, in any case, and without prejudice to the foregoing, that trial in camera is ultra vires of the Constitution, will violate the fundamental rights and will amount to a travesty of justice and fair play.