ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday set aside the dismissal of former Islamabad High Court (IHC) senior judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, declaring he should be entitled to all the perks and benefits as a retired judge of the high court.
The 23-page verdict compiled by CJP Justice Qazi Faez Isa stated that Siddiqui should be declared as a retired high court judge and will also get the perks and benefits of retirement.
In January, a five-member bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and including Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Irfan Saadat had reserved its verdict on Siddiqui’s plea against his removal.
The proceedings of the case 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.
The former judge had challenged the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) about his removal from service after a speech he had delivered at Rawalpindi Bar Association. Lawyer Hamid Khan represented the former IHC judge in the case, while Khawaja Haris appeared before the apex court to represent former director general of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lieutenant General (retd) Faiz Hameed and Brigadier (retd) Irfan Ramay. The proceedings were broadcast live on the apex court’s website as well as on its YouTube channel.
At the start of the hearing, 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.
When asked about the allegation against his client, Hamid answered it pertained to a speech and urged the court to quash the decision against Siddiqui. Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa said the problem is not the speech but its text. The chief justice remarked that if a judge is removed for giving a speech, then half of the judiciary will go home.
It is pertinent to mention here that the then President of Pakistan Dr Arif Alvi removed Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui from his post in the light of a recommendation by the Supreme Judicial Council over his controversial speech before the District Bar Association, Rawalpindi on 21 July, 2018.
In its written verdict issued today, the SC said that the SJC’s opinion about Siddiqui’s dismissal and the subsequent notification issued on Oct 11, 2018 were “set aside”.
The apex court noted that a “delay that occurred in hearing and deciding these petitions meant that in the interregnum, Justice Siddiqui attained the age of 62 years, at which age a judge of the high court retires”.
“Therefore, Justice Siddiqui cannot be restored to the position of judge,” the verdict said.
“Consequently, Justice Siddiqui shall be deemed to have retired as a judge of the IHC and he will be entitled to receive all the benefits and privileges due to a retired judge, by allowing these petitions in the above term,” it stated.
The apex court observed that a “failure to abide by the fundamental right of due process resulted in Justice Siddiqui being treated unfairly and it was conjecturally assumed that he was making false allegations”.
“The action, as it was taken, against Justice Siddiqui constituted mala fide and the SJC had acted coram non judice,” the SC asserted.
The judgment said the SJC had determined Siddiqui as guilty of misconduct “without ascertaining the veracity of the allegations and without conducting an inquiry” and “merely because he had taken the matter public”.
“If all that Justice Siddiqui alleged was true then it would be unjust and unfair to punish him for highlighting wrongdoing at the highest level. But, if on the other hand what he had alleged was found to be false then he would be guilty of misconduct,” the SC asserted.
It stressed the need to ascertain the veracity of the allegations against the former judge, noting that the then-army chief and the government had “explicitly requested” the same.
The order noted that the SJC “did not state what particular misconduct Justice Siddiqui was guilty of”.
“The SJC appears to have been shocked because Justice Siddiqui had made serious allegations and had done so publicly; without appreciating that these were not generalised allegations with regard to the ISI as a whole but against certain officers within its ranks, and specific allegations against his own Chief Justice,” the order said.
The apex court observed that the SJC’s approach of assuming that “a person in a senior position would be telling the truth while one junior to him would not” was “not correct”.
