ustice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, following his resignation in January earlier this year, was found guilty of misconduct by the Supreme Judicial Council a few days ago.

The SJC is a pivotal judicial body enshrined under Article 209 of the constitution. It plays a crucial role in maintaining the discipline and integrity of the Judiciary by overseeing the conduct of judges of both the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The SJC is composed of the chief justice of Pakistan, who serves as its chairman, the two most senior judges of the Supreme Court, and the two most senior chief justices of the High Courts. This configuration lends gravitas and authority to its decisions and proceedings.

The primary functions and powers of the SJC encompass deciding and maintaining the seniority of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, conducting inquiries into the performance and conduct of these judges and chief justices, and dealing with rules and regulations concerning their removal. The seniority among judges and chief justices is determined based on the date of their appointment to their current positions. In cases where chief justices are appointed on the same date, their seniority is determined based on their tenure as a judge in a High Court.

The SJC also plays a role in judicial inquiries. When investigating a judge or a chief justice who is a member of the council, or in cases where a member is absent or unable to perform their duties, the next most senior judge or chief justice steps in as a replacement. These proceedings highlight the council’s pivotal role in upholding the Judiciary’s integrity by ensuring accountability and ethical conduct. If there is a difference of opinion among the members during an inquiry, the majority’s view prevails and is then forwarded to the president for action. This process underscores the council’s crucial function in addressing issues of incapacity, inability or misconduct in the Judiciary’s ranks.

Overall, the SJC embodies a mechanism of judicial accountability, ensuring that the highest standards of conduct are maintained in the judiciary, thereby reinforcing public confidence in the legal system.

Justice Naqvi (retired) faced allegations of amassing assets in excess of his disclosed sources of income and involvement in some dubious transactions. Ten complaints had been lodged against Justice Naqvi.

In October 2023, the SJC served Justice Naqvi with a show-cause notice regarding the allegations that had been brought against him. This action followed various complaints, including one significant allegation related to leaked audio recordings purportedly involving Naqvi in conversation about manipulation of cases.

The complaints highlighted concerns regarding the Judiciary’s reputation and the need for adherence to a strict code of conduct. Naqvi, in his defence, expressed intention to challenge the SJC’s opinion, claiming the proceedings against him were one-sided and alleging that the law does not permit proceedings against a judge who has already retired.

The SJC’s actions and the subsequent resignation of Naqvi under such circumstances underscore the challenges and complexities within the judicial system regarding integrity and accountability.

In his preliminary response, Justice Naqvi presented his own inquiries to the SJC, claimed “serious prejudice” against him, and demanded that three SJC members, including Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, recuse themselves from the investigation into the complaints against him.

He subsequently submitted a comprehensive reply to the show-cause notice subsequent to acquiring documents pertaining to the allegations levied against him. He also filed a challenge before the Supreme Court regarding the proceedings against him. However, subsequent to the court’s denial of his appeal to halt the SJC proceedings against him, Justice Naqvi submitted his resignation letter to the president.

He asserted that no evidence was provided to prove that he misused his office. Despite his arguments, the SJC proceeded with its decision, even amending Article V of the Judges Code of Conduct to address concerns related to the publicity of allegations against judges. It further stated that a number of judges had voiced apprehensions that addressing such allegations might be interpreted as malfeasance, given that Article V of the Code of Conduct for Judges, which was published by the SJC on September 2, 2009, prohibits judges from pursuing publicity. The SJC, in its most recent deliberations, reached the conclusion that a reply or clarification issued by or on behalf of a judge does not constitute a violation of Article V.

In addition, the SJC amended Article V of the code to provide the accused judge with an opportunity to respond in the event that an allegation is made public. As stated in the press release, six distinct complaints were received, arranged in chronological order. Five of the complaints were deemed to be devoid of substance.

This case represents a significant moment in Pakistan’s judicial history, highlighting the mechanisms in place for holding the highest levels of the Judiciary accountable for their conduct. The SJC’s actions and the subsequent resignation of Naqvi under such circumstances underscore the challenges and complexities within the judicial system regarding integrity and accountability.

A major concern in addressing judicial misconduct in Pakistan is the clarity and application of the judicial code of conduct. The grounds for removal must be precisely formulated to ensure that judges can regulate their conduct accordingly. Vagueness in the code of conduct is particularly problematic because the only option explicitly provided to the SJC upon finding misconduct is recommending that the judge be removed from office.

Golbal standards emphasise the importance of ensuring that sanctions are proportionate to the seriousness, degree of fault and the impact of misconduct by a judge. The current system’s potential for arbitrary, biased or overbroad application underscores the need for reform to align with international standards and ensure judicial independence and the rule of law.

These cases and the broader issues they represent underline the importance of clear, precise and fair procedures for addressing judicial misconduct, balanced with the need to uphold the independence and integrity of the Judiciary.

The writer is an advocate of the High Court, a founding partner at Lex Mercatoria and a visiting teacher at Bahria University’s Law Department. She can be reached at minahil.ali12@yahoo.com