Justice Qazi Faez Isa v President of Pakistan P L D 2023 Supreme Court 661 

Case Title:  

Justice Qazi Faez Isa v President of Pakistan  

Citation:  

P L D 2023 Supreme Court 661 

Court: 

Supreme Court of Pakistan. 

Date of Judgment:  

4 April 2022  

Judges Present: 

Justice Umar Ata Bandial, Justice Maqbool Baqar, Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Justice Mazhar Alam,  Khan Miankhel, Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Munib Akhtar, Justice  Yahya Afridi, Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. 

Author Judge: 

Justice Munib Akhtar.  

Parties: 

Petitioner: Justice Qazi Faez Isa  

Respondent: President of Pakistan  

Brief Summary: 

Justice Qazi Faez Isa asked the Supreme Court to broadcast or live-stream the court proceedings related to  the review of the reference against him. He wanted the public to be able to watch the proceedings. The main issue was whether the court should allow television coverage. This was because of the public’s  right to information. That right is mentioned in Article 19-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court rejected the request. The decision was made by a majority of six to four. The majority  said the request was not handled properly. They sent the question, about live-streaming court proceedings  to the Full Court. The minority group supported the idea of allowing the public to see the court sessions  through television. 

Core Legal Issues before the Supreme Court:  

The core legal questions before the Supreme Court centered on the “Constitutionality and permissibility”  of “broadcasting or live streaming of court proceedings”. Specifically, the Court examined whether  review petitions challenging directions given to tax authorities regarding a petitioner-judge’s family  foreign assets could entertain a miscellaneous application praying that the Court “order live-streaming of  the court proceedings of his case,” direct PTV to “broadcast live proceedings,” and compel PEMRA to  issue instructions ensuring private television channels “cannot be restrained in any manner whatsoever  from broadcasting the proceedings”. The adjudication involved determining the “Maintainability and  competency” of such a novel prayer under Article 188 and Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court  Rules, 1980 governing the “Review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court”. Furthermore, the Court evaluated  the scope of the public’s fundamental “right to have access to information in all matters of public  importance” under Article 19A of the Constitution(particularly regarding cases heard in its original  jurisdiction under Article 184(3))and whether implementing live-streaming constitutes a positive  obligation of the judiciary or a matter of policy to be regulated under Article 191. 

Decision of Supreme Court:  

The Supreme Court of Pakistan turned down Justice Qazi Faez Isas request to stream and broadcast the  court sessions. The decision was made by a majority of six to four. The majority said the request could  not be accepted because it was outside the courts review powers as given by Article 188 of the  Constitution. However the judges who were in the minority agreed with streaming. They believed that the  public has a right to information as stated in Article 19-A and that it is important for court sessions to be  open and clear, for everyone. 

Reasons For the decision:  

The Supreme Court turned down the request by a 6–4 vote because it felt the request was not allowed  under Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan. This article limits the Court’s power to review cases.  The majority said the request brought up topics about freedom of speech under Article 19 and the right to  information under Article 19-A. They said these issues could not be handled through a request made  during a review process. The Court also said that its sessions were already open to the public, including  reporters who could be there in person. So the Court decided that not allowing streaming would not stop  justice from being done or be a misuse of the legal system. 

The judges who were in the minority did not agree with the majority’s reasons. They said that live streaming would help make things clearer, help people be more responsible and build trust in the courts.  They said that being able to watch court sessions in cases that matter to the public is connected to the  basic right to information, under Article 19-A. But even so the request was turned down by the majority. 

Significance:  

The case is important because it raised questions about judicial transparency, open justice and the public’s  right to information under Article 19-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. The case brought up a debate  between keeping the established procedures and dignity of the Supreme Court and giving the public  access to court hearings by live‑streaming. The case also showed how important procedural rules, Article  188 are when people ask for relief from the Supreme Court. This case still matters for talks, about modernising the system, building public trust in the judiciary and making court proceedings easier for the  public to see.