In Islamabad, Justice Athar Minallah, standing as the solitary dissenting voice among a five-member bench, expressed his disagreement regarding the denial of a request to live-stream proceedings in the NAB amendments case. He argued that this decision contradicted principles previously established in a case brought before the court by the incumbent chief justice.
Justice Minallah emphasized that there were no significant reasons or extraordinary circumstances justifying the denial of public access to court proceedings via live streaming. His dissenting note, spanning 13 pages, was issued in response to a May 30 Supreme Court order, where four out of five judges asserted that live broadcast or livestreaming fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court. However, they stressed the need for caution to prevent potential exploitation or misuse.
The incident in question occurred on May 16 during a hearing of the NAB amendments case, attended remotely by former Prime Minister Imran Khan. Despite the request from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa advocate general for live streaming of subsequent proceedings, the plea was rejected.
Justice Minallah underlined that discretion to deny livestreaming of court proceedings should only be exercised under exceptional circumstances and for compelling reasons. Furthermore, once proceedings have been live-streamed, discontinuation should only occur if deemed necessary in the public interest and with substantial justification.
He cautioned against the unjustifiable denial of access, warning that it could breed suspicion and undermine public confidence in the apex court. Transparency and impartiality, he stressed, were paramount for maintaining trust in the judicial system.
Reflecting on past cases, Justice Minallah referenced the dismissal of then-Justice Qazi Faez Isa’s application for livestreaming his review petition on a presidential reference against him. The court had affirmed public access to proceedings as a fundamental right but dismissed the application on procedural grounds.
Drawing from historical precedents, Justice Minallah highlighted instances where elected leaders, including former prime ministers, faced persecution perceived to be politically motivated. He underscored the importance of safeguarding the rights of elected representatives and their supporters to prevent lasting damage to the institution’s credibility.
In conclusion, Justice Minallah urged the court to prioritize transparency and fairness, especially in cases involving public interest and elected representatives, to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and uphold democratic values.
