ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by former Islamabad High Court senior judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui against his removal.
A five-member bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Irfan Saadat — heard the plea. The proceedings were broadcast live on the apex court’s website.
In his petition, the former judge had challenged a decision of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) about his dismissal from service and an Oct 11, 2018 notification under which he was removed for a speech he had delivered at Rawalpindi Bar Association.
During the hearing, CJP Isa said the court could not punish anyone without conducting an inquiry. “The SC has to draw a line on the difference between the Supreme Court and the Supreme Judicial Council,” he observed. “If removing a judge is so easy, then this is a threat to the independence of the judiciary,” the top judge further noted, adding that the current matter was public and people had a right to know the truth.
During the hearing, Khawaja Haris appeared as Gen Hameed’s and brigadier Ramay’s counsel while Wasim Sajjad was present as Justice Kasi’s lawyer. Hamid Khan appeared as the petitioner’s counsel.
At the outset, Haris came to the rostrum and informed the court who he was representing.
Justice Siddiqui’s lawyer urged the court to conduct a “fair inquiry” of the matter, arguing that under Article 209(6) of the Constitution, the SJC could not present a report to the country’s president without conducting an inquiry.
CJP Isa asked whether the ex-judge “admitted the allegations against him or rejected them”, to which the lawyer replied that his client had denied all allegations levelled against him. The top judge then noted that former SC registrar Arbab had submitted his response as well.
“The Supreme Judicial Council is a strong constitutional body,” the chief justice further observed. Referring to Article 210 of the Constitution, Justice Isa added that the SJC had “broad constitutional powers” and every such body had the right to take independent decisions.
