PUTRAJAYA: Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat said the judiciary was unjustifiably painted as the villain for actions or inactions of another body in the justice system.
Citing several recent cases that sparked public backlash, she mentioned how these instances have eroded judicial independence and undermined public confidence in the judiciary.
"Last year, the Public Prosecutor made the decision to withdraw criminal charges against certain high-profile individuals.
"These decisions were not particularly received well by the public but a large part of the blame was put on the Judiciary for making the only available consequential orders upon the withdrawal of such charges.
"When the Public Prosecutor decides to withdraw charges, the Courts only have one of two very limited consequential options.
"Depending on the facts, these two options are either granting an order of discharge not amounting to an acquittal (DNAA) or a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DAA).
"When a charge is withdrawn, the judge making the only available consequential orders is painted as corrupt, sometimes as incompetent or sometimes both.
"What the public fails to understand is that the person responsible for that decision is the Public Prosecutor and not the courts," she said at the opening of legal year held at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre here today.
Tengku Maimun said it is often the courts that are chastised for such decisions, leading to the erosion of public confidence in the judical system.
"The courts cannot turn around and insist to the Public Prosecutor that a charge remain."
On Sept 3, last year, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi was granted DNAA of 12 criminal breach of trust charges, eight counts of bribery and 27 for money laundering, involving scores of millions of ringgit belonging to Yayasan Akal Budi.
Tengku Maimun said the Judiciary and the Public Prosecutor have their own constitutionally-demarcated constitutional functions and both must be adjudged fairly for the exercise of their powers to the exclusion of the other.
The top judge also referenced other cases related to the question of whether the Selangor State Legislature was empowered to pass certain legislations to prove her point.
"Unfortunately, these cases were made out by some parties to be more than what they actually were.
"These cases had nothing to do with the fact of the pure religion of Islam. They merely sought to reemphasise the clear demarcation of powers between the federation and the States.
"The comments by certain irresponsible parties are targeted at painting the picture that the Judiciary has an 'agenda' or motives to eradicate Islam in this country," she said.
Tengku Maimun also pointed out that in some instances, these comments unjustifiably question the personal faith of certain Judges or even their motivation for deciding as such.
She said such comments incite hatred and ill will among the public against the Judiciary or the fear of perceived distorted outcome of such decisions.
She also reiterated that judicial institutions as well as judges must be free to make their own decisions solely on the facts and the law without any other considerations.
"Unlike politicians, judges do not , and indeed, cannot answer to or be governed by political will or popularity.
"A judge is meant to be an independent constitutional arbiter or justice between the state and its subjects (and vice versa) as well as between subjects inter se.
"His or her loyalties are apparent in a constitutionally-ordained judicial oath taken to protect, preserve, and defend the Federal Constitution," she said.
Tengku Maimun added any attempt to externally influence or to undermine public confidence in the Judiciary is an aberration to the Rule of Law.
"Comments and criticism must be based on some fact and not on lies or ignorance.
"In the best case, uneducated comments reflect sheer ignorance and it the worst case, they reflect malice," she added.