Following controversy over a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) on the elevation of higher court judges to the Supreme Court, the top court released the audio of the meeting on July 29 to clarify the matter.
Two judges — Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Sardar Tariq Masood — had objected to a statement released by the apex court's public relations office after the meeting, saying that it did not accurately portray the outcome of the discussion.
The handout from the apex court stated that the proposal to defer the meeting was supported by Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice (retd) Sarmad Jalal Osmany, and Attorney-General of Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf Ali.
Justice Isa and Justice Masood objected that this was not the case as the meeting abruptly ended after Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial left.
As a result of the objections from both judges, the apex court — on the directives of the CJP — released the audio on its website, where select minutes of the meeting can be heard.
While the move did not sit well with some members of the legal fraternity, others backed it, saying that for the sake of "transparency", it was the right decision.
Two judges — Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Sardar Tariq Masood — had objected to a statement released by the apex court's public relations office after the meeting, saying that it did not accurately portray the outcome of the discussion.
The handout from the apex court stated that the proposal to defer the meeting was supported by Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice (retd) Sarmad Jalal Osmany, and Attorney-General of Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf Ali.
Justice Isa and Justice Masood objected that this was not the case as the meeting abruptly ended after Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial left.
As a result of the objections from both judges, the apex court — on the directives of the CJP — released the audio on its website, where select minutes of the meeting can be heard.
While the move did not sit well with some members of the legal fraternity, others backed it, saying that for the sake of "transparency", it was the right decision.
Moreover, lawyers were asked whether such moves will affect the reputation of serving judges who were being openly discussed in the meeting. Lastly, they were requested to shed light on whether the audio of a private meeting should be released without the consent of all the members present.
