In Islamabad, PML-N leader Atta Tarar has announced that once Umar Atta Bandial’s tenure concludes, September 16 will be commemorated as Liberation Day.
During a seminar titled “Rule of Law and Impartial Judiciary” organized by the Muslim League-N Lawyers Forum in Islamabad, Atta Tarar strongly criticized the Chief Justice of Pakistan. He stated that September 16 was historically celebrated as a Day of Salvation and also offered condolences for Rana Maqbool’s passing at the seminar’s outset.
During his address, Atta Tarar expressed concerns about the rule of law being disregarded during the Panama verdict. He likened this to the Defense Day celebrated on September 6 and proposed that September 16 should be dedicated to Liberation Day. He presented data regarding bench formations during the Chief Justice’s tenure, noting that Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan was heavily involved, and the Chief Justice himself handled numerous political and non-political cases. Justice Muneeb Akhtar was the third judge with significant involvement in political cases.
Atta Tarar also highlighted that the nominated Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa was often ignored, alleging that arbitrary bench formations and the phrase “good to see” had undermined the rule of law. He raised questions about the possibility of a full court reference for the Chief Justice’s retirement, noting that his elder had declined such a reference in the past.
Furthermore, Atta Tarar criticized the Panama judgment, particularly the treatment of receivable salary as an asset. He argued that this was not a case of a “black dictionary” but rather a case involving questionable individuals. He expressed doubts about the fairness of trials when the Supreme Court closely monitored them and cited instances of judicial impropriety.
Atta Tarar also mentioned cases involving the release of individuals on physical remand and the handling of bail hearings, suggesting that political factors influenced such decisions. He criticized the judiciary for intervening in legislation and its alleged bias in favor of certain judges.
In conclusion, Atta Tarar raised concerns about the judiciary’s interference in legislative matters and the perceived lack of accountability among judges, contrasting this with the judiciary’s strict treatment of politicians. He also noted instances where judges were given loans without interest.
