ISLAMABAD, Apr 03 (APP): Supreme Court judge Justice Qazi Faez Isa on Monday asked the secretaries of the Cabinet Division and Establishment Division to immediately recall SC Registrar Ishrat Ali to prevent him from further damaging the reputation and integrity of the Supreme Court.
Justice Isa, in a letter addressed to the SC Registrar and copies to the secretaries of Cabinet and Establishment divisions, asked the latter that if they considered it appropriate to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Ishrat Ali in accordance with the applicable laws as he had apparently violated the Constitution and the order of the Supreme Court dated March 29 passed in the Suo Motu case No 4 of 2022.
Addressing the SC Registrar, Justice Isa said: “I was astonished to receive your circular’ bearing No. Registrar/2023/SCJ dated 31 March 2023. The circular purports to negate, undo, disobey and violate order dated 29 March 2023 of a three-member bench of the Supreme Court, passed in Suo Motu Case No. 4 of 2022. The Registrar does not have the power or authority to undo a judicial order, and the Chief Justice cannot issue administrative directions with regard thereto.
“Your conduct demonstrates that you do not have the requisite competence, ability and understanding to hold the office of Registrar. Moreover, a bureaucrat holding the office of the Registrar violates Article 175(3) of the Constitution, which mandates the complete separation of the judiciary from the executive.”
Justice Isa asked the Registrar to withdraw the circular immediately and inform all those who had set it as it was in the best interest of him and that of the Supreme Court.
He maintained that the circular referred to a decision of the SC (Suo Motu Case no. 4/2021, PLD 2022 Supreme Court 306). ???If you had read it you would have realised that it pertained to invoking powers under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution (suo motu). However, in the subject case, suo motu notice had not been taken by the bench before which it was listed for hearing on March 15, 2023. You lost sight of this obvious distinction and did not appreciate that the case cited in the circular was not applicable.”
