” PTI castigated for ‘politicising’ IHC judges’ letter ” | GNN INFO

ISLAMABAD: Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar has said that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) attempted to use Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges’ letter for its politics, ARY News reported.

Reacting to PTI leaders’ statements on Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa’ suo moto notice on the matter, Tarar asserted that the PTI founder and leaders tried to politicise the matter.

The minister said that the seven-member bench of the Supreme Court was constituted under Article 184(3). The constitution of benches is a prerogative of the CJP and other senior judges, he added.

Read more: IHC judges’ letter: PTI rejects CJP Isa’s seven-member suo moto case bench

Without naming the PTI, Tarar said that those who filed references against judges should not give advice on the independence of the judiciary.

A day earlier, CJP Isa took suo moto notice of IHC judges’ allegations of interference by intelligence agencies.

The seven-member larger bench comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Yahya Afridi, Justice Jamal Mandokhail, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan will hear the case at 11:30am on Wednesday.

The PTI rejected the constitution of the larger bench and demanded a full court bench to conduct a hearing on the case while urging for the proceedings to be live telecast.

It is pertinent to mention that six serving judges of Islamabad High Court penned a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), urging it to summon a judicial convention to review the matter of “interference of intelligence agencies with judicial functions”.

The federal government announced to establish an inquiry commission to investigate the issues raised in the letter and former CJP Justice (retired) Tassaduq Hussain Jillani was charged with heading the commission.

However, Jillani refused to head the inquiry commission on the IHC judges’ letter, saying that the letter was penned to the Supreme Judicial Council and it did not fall under Article 209.