Syed YOUSAF RAZA GILLANI Versus ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
This matter concerns an appeal filed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani, against an order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. During the proceedings, the Court drew the attention of the appellant's counsel to specific questions of law (numbered 45, 51, and 52) raised in the pleadings. These questions suggested that the Prime Minister's past actions in releasing detained judges should mitigate potential contempt charges, implying a comparison between his conduct and that of those who previously dismantled the judiciary. The Court observed that framing such questions was inappropriate for the head of government, as it created an impression that the judiciary might be influenced by past political actions, thereby embarrassing the appellant rather than the Court. Upon the Court's admonition, the appellant's counsel, under instructions, requested the deletion of these specific questions from the pleadings. The Supreme Court acceded to this request, ordering the deletion of the identified questions from the appeal and all associated Civil Miscellaneous Applications, and adjourned the hearing for further arguments.
- Can a party to a legal proceeding request the deletion of specific questions of law from their own pleadings?
- Is it permissible for a litigant to frame legal questions in a manner that implies the judiciary may be influenced by past political actions of the litigant?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the deletion of inappropriate questions from pleadings during an appeal?
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- Attention of Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, who is instructed by Mr. M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record was drawn towards the following questions of law, which according to them arise for consideration in the instant appeal:--
Questions 45, 51 and 52
(45) Could a Prime Minister who undid the draconian action of a military dictator (of arresting judges of the superior courts, including the Hon'ble Chief Justice and his children) even before he had taken oath as Prime Minister, be presumed to have contemplated committing contempt?
(51) Whether it is not ironic that a Prime Minister who released the detained judges should be sent to prison, or sentenced otherwise, by the judiciary?
(52) Can the duly elected Prime Minister of Pakistan not even expect to be dealt with in a manner similar to real, actual and blatant contemners of the variety that:
Sacked the superior courts and their judges in November 2007;
Expressly and brazenly flouted the historic order dated November 3, 2007;
Arrested the judges of the superior courts along with their children members of their families, detained and continued to hold them captive for prolonged periods;
Promulgated and/or applied and administered anti-judiciary laws such as the PCO and the Judges, Oath of Office Order;
Unleashed brutal State violence on Members of the Bar (as officers of the Court) and other citizens of Pakistan seeking the reinstatement of the sacked judges;
But have yet to be formally charged and indicted for their patently criminal actions?
They were further apprised that the questions reproduced hereinabove were phrased in such a manner, which should not have been recorded by the appellant who is the incumbent Prime Minister of Pakistan and is supposed to possess highest moral values being the constitutional head and the impression is being created as if the judiciary as a whole is being influenced on account of alleged favourable actions done by him for its members by performing the acts noted therein. Therefore it is tantamount not to embarrass the Court, but the appellant himself as he ought not to have claimed relief or presumed that some relief should be given to him for such action. The learned counsel appearing on his behalf, however, stated that these questions were framed with a view to show respect and deference to the judiciary and in no manner it should be considered that perhaps the judiciary is being influenced for any purpose. However, under instructions received from the learned Advocate-on-Record of the appellant, he stated at the bar that the above questions be deleted from the pleadings.
2. On having considered the request of the learned counsel and also considering that the above questions are being required to be deleted under instructions from the appellant through his Advocate-on-Record, we accede to the request so made. Consequently, questions Nos.45, 51 and 52 are deleted from the pleadings.
3. Similarly, in the CMAs wherever these questions have been repeated shall be deemed to have been deleted under instructions received by the learned counsel for the appellant through his Advocate-on-Record.
4. Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court is continuing with his arguments, which are not likely to be concluded in the course of the day. It is already 4-00 p.m., as such the case is adjourned for 10-2-2012.
M.W.A./Y-1/SC Order accordingly.