Siddiqui maligned judiciary, violated judges’ code of conduct: SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) Thursday observed that the sacked Islamabad High Court (IHC) Judge, Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, publicly maligned the judiciary and violated the code of conduct for judges.

Similarly, the federal government denied the allegations levelled by the sacked judge against the army officials. A five-member larger bench, headed by Justice Umer Ata Bandial, heard the petition, filed by Shaukat Siddiqui, challenging a notification of the president terminating his services.

At the start of hearing, Additional Attorney General (AAG) Sohail Mahmood appeared before the court and submitted that he wanted to place before it a statement on behalf of the federal government, which the court allowed.

He then read out the statement, stating that during hearing of the petition on June 8, 2021, the counsel for the petitioner had read a number of paragraphs from the document, attached with the petition, which contained allegations about certain officers of the state.

“As the apex court is hearing submissions on the question of maintainability in view of the bar under Article 211 of the Constitution, the federal government has not filed any reply,” AAG submitted.

However, he stated that as specific allegations about certain officers of the state were made in the petition and read out in the court, on instructions it is placed before this apex court that the allegations made are baseless, misleading and, therefore, denied.

Hamid Khan, the counsel for the petitioner-judge, continued his arguments on Thursday and submitted that he tried the other day to file an affidavit in the court on his statement, but the Registrar office returned the whole paper book, terming it scandalous,

Justice Bandial, however, asked the counsel to conclude his arguments on the maintainability of his petition and convince the court in that regard.

“And also tell us as to how you will connect your course of arguments on the question of maintainability of the petition with the bar of Article 211 of the Constitution,” Justice Bandial told Hamid Khan.

Article 211 relates to bar of jurisdiction which says that the proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council, its report to the President and the removal of a judge under clause (6) of Article 209 shall not be called in question in any court.

Justice Bandial asked Hamid Khan to argue on his stance that conducting an inquiry was mandatory before removing a judge of the superior judiciary.

“Though three proceedings have been conducted in the instant matter so far, we are still hearing the arguments on the issue of maintainability of the petition,” Justice Bandial added.

The judge told the counsel that they were working during the holidays, adding that the next week, other two members of the bench may not be available; therefore, it would be better that arguments should be condensed.

Hamid Khan, however, reiterated that without conducting proper inquiry, a judge cannot be removed from his office, adding that the issue was not only a speech of the petitioner.

“Merely speech does not constitute a misconduct,” Hamid Khan contended adding that he had initially sought an open inquiry into the matter.

Justice Bandial asked the counsel as to whether the Supreme Judicial Council can conduct an open inquiry.

Hamid Khan replied that he was assured of conducting an open inquiry.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen, another member of the bench, however, observed that maybe the Council felt no need for an inquiry in the light of admitted facts.

“If we agree with your stance that inquiry was need before sending the judge home, then the Council might have passed order in that regard,” Justice Ahsen observed.

“But here, there are admitted facts, that’s why no inquiry was required,” Justice Ahsen added.

“If you convince us that you needed an inquiry then we can move on this submission,” Justice Ahsen added.

Hamid Khan contended that Article 209 (5) of the Constitution requires the President to direct the Supreme Judicial Council or the Council may, on its own motion, inquire into the matter.

“The Council hence cannot avoid the constitutional dictate and is required to hold an inquiry into the misconduct of a judge,” Hamid Khan submitted.

He submitted that no forum except the Supreme Judicial Council was available for a judge to plead his case, adding that the Council told him that he could not prove the allegations.

“How I could prove my allegations in the absence of an inquiry in the matter,” Hamid Khan questioned.

Justice Bandial observed that the sacked judge had publicly maligned the judiciary and violated the code of conduct for judges.

He was required to protect the sanctity of judiciary in accordance with the code of conduct of judges “but unfortunately he behaved in an irresponsible manner”, Justice Bandial remarked.

Hamid Khan submitted that he had also written a letter to Chief Justice of Pakistan for conducting an inquiry into the state agency officials contacting his client.

“I wrote in the letter for conducting an inquiry into the matter and if I was found guilty, then punish me,” Hamid Khan submitted.

“It would have been better if the letter had been sent before the speech of the petitioner-judge,” Justice Bandial remarked. Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing for today (Friday).