ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that the prayer for stay of proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi is not tenable at this stage.
A three-member bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel and Justice Musarat Hillai, issued a written order of January 8, 2024 in the petitions filed by Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi, challenging the show cause notice issued to him by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on the misconduct complaints filed the Pakistan Bar Council and others.
Justice Naqvi had filed a petition with the apex court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution terming the misconduct complaints filed against him a direct and blatant attack on the independence of judiciary.
The judge had prayed the apex court to declare the initiation of proceedings by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) as coram non judice, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and quash the same. The judge had hired the services of senior advocates including Makhdoom Ali Khan, Latif Khosa, Khwaja Haris and others.
The bench in its written order noted that Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel for Justice Naqvi submitted a photostat copy of the interim order of this court dated 7.5.2007 passed in constitutional petition titled Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, HCJ versus President of Pakistan through its secretary and others’ and prayed that an injunctive order be issued against the Supreme Judicial Council to stay the proceedings against the petitioner.
The court, however, held that a photostat copy of the order cited is not applicable to the facts of this case. “In these circumstances, the prayer for stay of proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council against the petitioner in CP Nos.43 & 44 of 2023 is not tenable at this stage”, says the written order.
The court further noted it is necessary in the peculiar circumstances of this case that the complainants/informers who filed complaints with the SJC against the petitioner being proper person be made party as respondent and be heard to satisfy the maxim that no one should be condemned unheard, if this court wants to comment upon their complaints.
“For reaching a conclusion that the informers are to be impleaded in the instant petitions the provisions of Rule 9 of Order XXV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 are also in our consideration, at least the informers in these petitions are proper persons to be impleaded as respondents.
Similarly, the court noted that the argument on the basis that in the light of Contempt of Court Act, 2003 in present proceedings the informers cannot be impleaded has no relevance.
In the peculiar circumstances of this case, when all the pleadings in the body of the petitions revolve around the complaints/information by the informers, in our view their impleadment as respondent in these petitions would serve the purposes of justice, therefore, petitioners of CP.Nos.43, 44 and 45 to implead all the complainants/informers as respondents in the said petitions”, the written order further reads.
The court noted that petitioner in CP No.45 of 2023 to also implead learned petitioner of CP No.43 of 2023 as respondent in his petition and Petitioner in CP.No.46 of 2023 to implead the petitioner of CP Nos. 43 & 44 of 2023 as respondent in his petition.
The court further noted that the instant CP was fixed for hearing on 15.12.2023 when learned counsel raised the objection with regard to constitution of the Bench and prayed that he wants to file an application to raise this objection so that this bench may consider the same and prayed for fixation of the petitions for 8.1.2024 and on his request the case was adjourned for the said date.
“When the case was fixed for 8.1.2024, no written application was filed and during the hearing learned counsel stated that he wants to withdraw the objection noted on the last date of hearing”, says the written order.
As the petitioner’s counsel was not willing to implead the complainants as respondent in these petitions, then a question was posed to the learned counsel whether without impleading the complainants/informers we can proceed with the matter and on this point some of the arguments were advanced on 8.1.2024 and further arguments we heard today and passed the order of impleadment as respondent in these petitions.
The court directed the counsel for Justice Naqvi and counsel for Gujranwala Bar Association to file amended petitions and directed its office to fix the matters for hearing thereafter.
