SC allows filing of amended plea against appointment of judges to Sindh judiciary

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Thursday observed that the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) was the only forum to deal with matters related to complaints of misconduct filed against judges of the superior judiciary.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial observed that the Supreme Court had no substitute for any complaint against a judge of the superior court but the only forum was the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to deal with such complaints.

A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel, heard a constitutional petition regarding appointments to the Sindh High Court as well as staff, civil judges and additional district judges to lower judiciary of Sindh from 2017 till today.

The court allowed the petitioner to file an amended petition with a memo of parties as well furnishing additional documents. Ghulam Sarwar Khan had filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution making Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court, its Registrar, province of Sindh as well as the Federation of Pakistan through the Ministry of Law as respondents. Filed through Advocate Shamshul Isalm, the petitioner prayed the apex court to declare illegal and unconstitutional all appointments to the Sindh High Court as well as staff, civil judges and additional district judges to the lower judiciary of Sindh during the period from 2017 till today. The petitioner had further prayed the apex court to constitute a JIT comprising senior judges of the Supreme Court with the senior most judge of the Sindh High Court to scrtunize the record of the appointments. Similarly, he had also prayed the court to direct the respondents to de-notify the appointment.

The counsel for the petitioner argued form the Supreme Court Karachi Registry through video link. He submitted that the issue raised in the petition pertained to public at large and it would affect the fundamental rights of all citizens of Sindh and Pakistan. Justice Umar Ata Bandial however, observed as to how can the court hear the petition on the touchstone of parameters set for Article 184(3) of the Constitution which requires that the grievances must be related to public importance and where when there is any breach of law. The judge observed that the petitioner had not impleaded the appointed persons including the civil judges and additional district judges in the petitions. “What you are required to do is to implead the appointed persons as party”, Justice Bandial asked the counsel, adding as to why the petitioner had not approached the Sindh High Court. Justice Ijazul Ahsen asked the counsel as to whether he wanted the Apex Court to do as work as a court of inquiry. “My only submission is that the respondents since 2017 had violated the rules 5, 10 and 13 of SJS Rules and appointed civil judges and judicial magistrates of their own choice without considering merit," the counsel contended. “We are not here to guide you as you are a senior counsel and a number of cases and examples are before you”, Justice Ijazul Ahsen told the counsel.

“You need to implead the appointed persons, place on record if some wrongdoings had been made”, Justice Ahsen asked the counsel. “If you convince us that the matter does not fall under the purview of the Supreme Judicial Council (S6JC) and give some example then we will look into it”, Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed. “Don’t be discouraged, you are a bright advocate and you can improve your petition”, Justice Umar Ata Bandail told the counsel.

Meanwhile, the counsel sought permission to file an amended petition which the court accepted and directed him to do so by impleading the persons, appointed as party besides filing additional documents with the petition if he needed so and adjourned the hearing.