ZULFIKAR ALI BHUTTO vs The STATE
This matter concerns an application filed by the appellant, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, requesting the Chief Justice of Pakistan to recuse himself from the Bench hearing his appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant alleged that statements attributed to the Chief Justice in a foreign newspaper indicated bias and prejudgment of the case, suggesting the Chief Justice acted as a spokesman for the Chief Martial Law Administrator. The core legal question was whether the Chief Justice's interactions with foreign media during an international judicial conference constituted sufficient grounds for recusal based on apprehended bias. The Court held that the application was misconceived and based on a distorted interpretation of the Chief Justice's remarks. The Court clarified that the Chief Justice's statements were merely intended to explain the independence of the Pakistani judiciary and the treatment of the appellant in custody, rather than commenting on the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, affirming its commitment to deciding the appeal impartially and in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by unfounded allegations of bias.
- Can a judge be recused from a case based on allegations of bias stemming from statements made to the press regarding the independence of the judiciary?
- Does a judge's explanation of judicial procedures and custodial conditions to foreign media constitute prejudgment of a pending appeal?
- Is an application for recusal maintainable when it is based on a distorted interpretation of a judge's public statements?
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-This order will dispose of an application dated the 28th of June, 1978, submitted by appellant Zulfikar A.I Bhutto through the Superintendent, District Jail, Rawalpindi, praying that I should not preside any more over the Bench of the Supreme Court which is currently hearing his appeal against his conviction and sentence by the Lahore High Court in the case relating to the murder of Nawab Mohammad Ahmad Khan.
2. The appellant has taken objection to certain statements attributed to me in a news item published in an Indonesian language daily "Sinar Harapan" extracts from which were reported in the "Pakistan Times" of the 24th of June, 1978, as in the appellant's view these statements show that I have prejudged his case, and that I have acted as a spokesman of the Chief Martial Law Administrator in a foreign country.
3. The correct position is that I was in Jakarta from the 18th to the 27th of June, 1978, to participate in the 7th Asian Judicial Conference to which Chief Justices of 24 Asian and Pacific countries had been invited. As is usual and customary on these occasions, correspondent of Indonesian Papers were present at the airport as well as at the various functions organised in connection with the Conference. It was inevitable that the Chief Justice of Pakistan should be asked questions about the present appeal. While making it absolutely clear to the foreign journalist that I could not comment upon the merits of the case as the Supreme Court was still in the process of hearing the appeal, it was my duty to inform them about the independent position which the Judiciary occupies in Pakistan. Similarly it was my duty to inform them that there was no question of the appellant being maltreated while in custody during the hearing of the appeal. The appellant himself admits that this Court had indeed ensured that all reasonable facilities are given to him while in custody.
4. I have perused the report appearing in the Pakistan Times of the 24th of June, 1978, and frankly I can see nothing in it which can b construed as being prejudicial to the appellant, or showing that I have already prejudged the case against him. It is a matter of some regret that in making such an allegation the appellant has completely over--looked the patient hearing which this Court has so far given to his counsel. The Court is under an obligation to do full justice in the matter uninfluenced by allegations of the kind contained in its application. I have already made it clear, on a previous occasion, that I have no personal bias of any kind whatsoever against the appellant, and it is my endeavour to ensure that his appeal is decided impartially in accordance with law.
5. The present application is completely misconceived and based on a distorted view of the short statement made by me in response to pressing questions asked by journalists in Indonesia. It is accordingly dismissed.
6. A copy of this order shall be supplied to the appellant through the Jail authorities.