As the dissenting notes in the Justice Faez Isa case were released on Wednesday, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah noted that action should be taken against Shahzad Akbar – special assistant to the prime minister – and the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) as well as the NADRA and FBR officials who provided information in an illegal manner, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.

On the other hand, Justice Maqbool Baqir wrote in his dissenting note that an attempt was made to remove Justice Faez Isa illegally.

Justice Mansoor also said that the matter of leaking the information illegally should be presented before the chief justice of Pakistan.

The 65-page dissenting note authored by Justice Mansoor says the president did not use his reasoning properly before sending the summary and signed the reference without asking any question.

Warning that the complaint against the senior judge will have long-term effects on the judiciary’s independence and transparency, Justice Mansoor also raised several questions.

Can the prime minister’s special assistant obtain information through spying on a top judiciary judge while acting over and above the state institutions? Can the law minister order the Assets Recovery Unit (ARU) for a probe while ignoring the law and the Constitution? Whether the law minister can send the material collected through illegal means in the shape of a summary to the prime minister?

It is also mentioned in the dissenting note that the way the complainant, Waheed Dogar, accessed the London properties was strange. Information was fed to him and those who did that are the real characters of the story.

The document says Justice Faez was intentionally targeted for the Faizabad sit-in as his judgment in the case resulted in differences among those in power.

It is written in the note that the vengeance and disapproval of Justice Faez is evident in the review applications, containing allegations and calling for his removal.

The prime minister had no knowledge of the steps taken by Shahzad Akbar. But he did not question the special assistant and the law minister over their illegal actions.

According to Justice Mansoor, the concept of judges’ accountability is opposite to the code of conduct and that the FBR does not have the powers to approach the president under Article 209.

On the other hand, Justice Baqir is of the opinion that the matters related to the assets of the judge’s family members do not fall under a matter of public interest after the reference filed against him has been rejected.

Moreover, the FBR laws say the source of income used to buy the properties in the period 2004-13 cannot be investigated.

The allegations levelled against Justice Faez are baseless and mala fide and that state machinery was used to remove him from the office, says Justice Baqir in his 68-page dissenting note.

Last month, the Supreme Court in its detailed judgment had declared that the presidential reference filed against Justice Faez was “tainted with mala fide in law”. This dissenting note by Justice Mansoor is part of that.

“Although the preparation and framing of the reference against the petitioner is not patently motivated with malice in fact, the scale and degree of the illegalities are such that the reference is deemed to be tainted with mala fide in law. For this reason, the reference is hereby quashed,” the 173-page detailed verdict read.