ISLAMABAD: The counsel of Shaukat Siddiqui submitted that the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) was biased against the ex-judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

A five-judge bench, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial, on Tuesday, heard Shaukat Siddiqui’s petition against the SJC’s recommendations and the federal government’s notification for his removal on the basis of his speech made at the District Bar Association, Rawalpindi on July 31, 2018.

At the onset of the hearing, Hamid Khan said the SJC is not a court and domestic forum and I would talk about the Council and there is mala fide and malaise in my case. He argued that the Council members’ conduct was mala fide and biased. He said that no inquiry was conducted against his client.

Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, a member of the larger bench, asked the counsel that he has levelled serious allegations against the SJC, adding, he is also part of the Council. He said if this is the case then he would not sit in the bench.

Hamid Khan stated that he is not blaming him, but some of its members who heard the reference against Shaukat Siddiqui regarding the speech. Justice Sajjad said that if there are any particular persons then name them, instead of accusing the whole SJC. Hamid Khan said that former chief justice Saqib Nisar and ex-CJP Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, who was the senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court, had bias against his client.

He further said Justice Sajjad was not the member of the Council, which recommended removal of Shaukat Siddiqui. Justice Sajjad said if the petitioner does not have faith in him then he would recuse from the bench.

Ex-judge Shaukat Siddiqui, who was present in the court, came to the rostrum and stated he has complete faith in all the members of the bench and expected that justice would be done in his case, adding even if the decision would come against then he would accept it.

Hamid Khan argued that there was also a reference against the former chief justice of Islamabad High Court Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi before the Judicial Council, but the reference was squashed against him and he was acquitted. Hamid Khan alleged that he (Kasi) was awarded by the SJC for giving evidence against his client.

Hamid Khan contended that inquiry is conducted even in the cases against hardcore criminals, while his client was the judge of the high court. Justice Bandial said, twice, Siddiqui was given opportunities. The counsel replied that show cause notices were issued to him in two references and he responded to those notices. He said show cause and inquiry are two different things.

He then read the opinion of Justice Asif Khosa and pointed out the malaise against Shaukat Siddiqui. The Court asked Hamid Khan to prove that whatever the ex-judge had uttered in his speech did not amount to “misconduct”.

In his speech, the former judge had made remarks about the involvement of certain officers of the executive organ of the state, specifically, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in the affairs of the judiciary to allegedly manipulate the formation of benches of the high court.

Justice Bandial told the counsel to argue “on the basis of facts” instead of hurling serious allegations.

He recalled that the SJC had given Siddiqui two chances to prove the allegations levelled by him. “You must prove that what Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui said in his speech was not misconduct, then [your argument will have weight],” said Justice Bandial. He also asked the counsel to assist the court in determining what constituted “misconduct”. The case was adjourned to an unspecified date in January.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2021