ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved the judgment on Shaukat Siddiqui’s petition regarding his removal as a judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and directed the petitioners and respondents’ counsels to file concise statements on legal questions.
After hearing the arguments, the Court put three questions; Whether an inquiry was conducted by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), if not then was it a constitutional and legal requirement, and if it was then what are the consequences of doing so?
Since the pendency of Shaukat Siddiqui’s petition, filed in October 2018, and the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on June 30, 2021, then how the matter now can be attended to, and if he is to be granted relief then whether the matter can be remanded to the SJC?
Whether there was no need for an inquiry by the SJC as the speech was admitted by the petitioner, and whether making of speech constituted misconduct under the Procedure of Inquiry, 2005?
The lawyers of Lt Gen Faiz Hameed (retd), Brig Irfan Ramay (retd), ex-CJ IHC Anwar Kasi, and former Registrar SC Arbab Muhammad Arif were directed to file concise statements on the questions.
The bench said after examining the statements if they considered that there was a need to further hear the case then it would be fixed; otherwise, would pass judgment.
A five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, heard the petitions of ex-judge IHC Shaukat Siddiqui, Islamabad Bar Association, and Karachi Bar Association (KBA).
The court on December 15, 2023, had issued notices to ex-DG ISI Faiz Hameed, former chief justice of IHC Anwar Kasi, Brig Irfan Ramay, and the ex-registrar apex court Arbab Muhammad Arif.
Khawaja Haris, representing former DG ISI Faiz Hameed and Brigadier Irfan Ramay (retd), said that his clients have denied the allegations, levelled by Shaukat Siddiqui against them. Hamid Khan, who appeared on behalf of ex-judge IHC, then said it makes his case clear.
Hamid requested the bench to set aside the recommendations of the Council and the President’s notification removing Shaukat Siddiqui as a judge of the IHC. The chief justice said there are two aspects of the matter, one is speech and the other is its contents. He questioned whether the allegations were inquired by the SJC or not?
Additional Attorney General Malik Javed replied no inquiry was conducted by the Council in the instant matter. The chief justice said they do not have a mechanism to figure out who is telling the truth, adding here the question is not the removal of a judge, but who will ascertain the truth.
The chief justice said that the petitioner has suffered enough due to the delay in deciding the matter. He said the case is not only to grant relief to the petitioner. “My concern is the integrity of the institution and to ascertain the truth.” He asked the counsel,” Don’t you want to know the truth of the matter”.
Justice Faez said it is the stance of the petitioner’s counsel to remand the matter to the Council. The SJC re-examine and determine the matter once and for all. It is not only in the interest of the petitioner but also of the institution which serves the people. “Truth is diametrically opposed by the respondents.” He further said this is not a matter of one person, but it is a matter of public interest, they have to be satisfied regarding who is telling the truth.
Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan said that certain (serious) allegations were levelled by the ex-judge IHC, but have been denied by the other side. He asked the court to see the matter in its entirety, and before remanding it to the SJC, the Court would have to first overturn the SC’s judgment in Afia Sher Bano case.
The lawyer of KBA, Salahuddin Ahmed, said the matter cannot be remanded to the SJC as the judge has attained the age of superannuation. He; however, said that the order of the SJC be declared unconstitutional and null and void, and in order to probe the petitioner’s allegations, constitute a commission of inquiry.
The CJP said the Code of Conduct of judges does not say that the judges cannot make a speech, adding in Britain the judges give interviews, while in America, the judges address the bars.
Hamid requested the Court to quash the SJC’s order and the matter be referred to the Council. The chief justice questioned can the bench remand the matter to the Council.
Khawaja Haris said the former IHC judge went to the Bar and made a speech, wherein, he levelled specific allegations against the institutions. He also said that Siddiqui had also filed a reply to the show-cause notice, issued to him by the SJC, and filed a petition before the apex court. He further told the court that the ex-judge had maligned the armed forces and the judiciary, and made speech for publicity.
Justice Faez remarked, “It was not publicity”, and asked Khawaja Haris, why he does not consider it an act of a whistleblower. He said the petitioner wrote to the then CJ IHC and when he took no action then in frustration, should the petitioner have not gone to the public?
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024
Comments
Comments are closed.