Shaukat Aziz sacking case: Matter involves constitutional institutions’ respect: CJP

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Tuesday reserved its verdict on the petition of Islamabad High Court (IHC) ex-judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui challenging his termination on the charge of misconduct.

A five-member larger bench of the apex court — headed by Chief Justice Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa — heard the petition.

Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan were the other bench members.

Hamid Khan represented Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, Khwaja Haris former director general ISI Lt Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed and brigadier (retd) Irfan Ramey, Barrister Wasim Sajjad former chief justice IHC Muhammad Anwar Kasi and Barrister Salahuddin represented the Sindh High Court Bar Association.

Dictating its order, the bench asked all the counsels to submit their written formulations whether the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) had conducted an inquiry. The court observed that Siddiqui had turned 62 on June 30, 2021 and asked if he could be given relief in case of approval of his appeal.

The court also asked if a judge could be removed without an inquiry and the matter could be referred to the SJC. The court further asked whether the inquiry was needed to admit the misconduct of speech.

The chief justice said if deemed necessary, the instant matter could be scheduled for re-hearing.

Earlier, during the course of hearing, Hamid Khan contended that the instant case was one of its kind wherein a judge was terminated from service without an inquiry.

Hamid Khan submitted that the SJC had recommended to the president to remove the petitioner judge without holding a proper inquiry. “Had the Council conducted an inquiry, the witnesses could have been cross-examined,” Hamid submitted.

He submitted that a detailed judgment should be issued explaining why an inquiry was essential before terminating the services of a judge.

Justice Rizvi asked the counsel whether an inquiry was needed when a judge’s speech was clear and available. He said there were also allegations of corruption against the petitioner judge.

Hamid Khan, however, maintained that the Council was required to conduct an inquiry before recommending to the president to remove the judge.

The chief justice asked Hamid Khan how many times the case had been heard in the Council. Hamid replied that Shaukat was called only once.

The attorney general informed the court that they had filed an intra-court appeal against the judgment delivered in Afia Shehrbano case and the appeal was expected to be numbered today or tomorrow. He submitted that if the decision of the apex court was annulled in Shehrbano case, the matter could go to the Council.

The attorney general submitted that in Siddiqui’s case, there might be an order restoring his privileges. In a broader context, the matter could go to the Council, he said. The AG further submitted that a judge could not be removed without an inquiry, as it was a matter of fundamental rights. The AG requested the court to club their appeal with Afia Shehrbano’s.

Hamid submitted that the apex court should declare the SJC action unconstitutional.

The chief justice asked if the allegations against the petitioner judge were found false, would the SJC decision stand after the inquiry.

Hamid said the court should first quash the proceeding against his client and after that an inquiry commission should be constituted to probe the matter.

The chief justice observed that the problem was not the speech delivered by the petitioner judge but its text.

“If a judge is removed for giving a speech, then half of the judiciary will go home,” the CJP said, adding that many judges deliver speeches during the bar council meetings. Therefore, the problem is not the speech but the text of speech as well, he said.

The chief justice observed that a judge’s code of conduct did not prevent him from speaking but the problem arose when points were raised in a speech. “In United Kingdom, judges even give interviews, while in US judges take part in debates.”

“The eyes of the entire nation are on us. Here is the question of respecting the constitutional institutions,” the chief justice stated, questioning what order should be issued by the bench in such circumstances, Geo News reported. The chief justice asked whether the matter could be referred back to the SJC. Hamid Khan replied in the affirmative.

Justice Mandokhel observed that Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui did not deny his speech and asked if it was appropriate for a judge to make such statements. Khwaja Haris submitted that they had rejected the allegations leveled by the petitioner judge against Faiz Hameed. He submitted that his client was not charged in the speech or before the Supreme Judicial Council.

He submitted that the instant matter could not be sent back to the Supreme Judicial Council adding that Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui had retired and now he could not be reinstated. He further said the Council could no longer review the case.

The chief justice observed that if the SJC’s recommendation was nullified, then the allegations would be considered valid.

Barrister Wasim Sajjad, counsel for former IHC Chief Justice Muhammad Anwar Kasi, submitted that the Constitution did not stop the apex court from remanding the matter back to the Council. He submitted that the court could even exercise its powers for ensuring complete justice.

Appearing before the court through a video link from the Karachi Registry, Barrister Salahuddin, counsel for the Sindh High Court Bar Association, submitted that the SJC had a specific role and suggested the constitution of a commission to probe the matter.

The counsel submitted that the court could constitute a commission in public interest.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked the counsel what would be the result if the petitioner judge’s allegations proved false? Barrister Salahuddin replied that criminal proceedings could be initiated against Siddiqui if his allegations were found to be false.

Justice Mandokhel asked the counsel how criminal proceedings against the judge could be possible without the Supreme Judicial Council. “Judges are not above the law,” Salahuddin replied saying the Supreme Court while exercising its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution could make an inquiry in this regard.

“Whether we record the statements of witnesses and cross-examine them?” the chief justice asked the counsel.

Salahuddin replied that when the high court could exercise this jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, then the Supreme Court could also do it. He further submitted that the SJC could not proceed against a retired judge. Later, the court reserved the judgment.