ISLAMABAD: Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi requested on Monday for early fixation of his constitutional petitions challenging the Supreme Judicial Council’s (SJC) proceedings of misconduct against him.
The advocate on record (AOR), on the instruction of Justice Naqvi, responded to the Supreme Court Registrar Office’s notice to inquire as to whether the judge wanted to proceed with his petition.
The application requested that the subject notice be withdrawn and both the petitions be placed before the committee for appropriate orders. It added that after this, the petitions along with the applications for interim relief be numbered and fixed for hearing before a bench of this court.
It is contended that the notice and the order, purportedly passed by the registrar, are ultra vires the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. “The Registrar has no authority to inquire from a petitioner whether he or she wants to proceed with a case or not. This notice is, therefore, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect,” he maintained.
The judge of the apex court requested in his reply to the assistant registrar (Civil-II) that the two constitutional petitions he filed should be fixed together for a hearing before a three-member bench committee.
In his message, he maintained: “Both constitution petitions raise questions of public importance relating to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.”
He also revealed that his applications have not been numbered yet and that it “is in violation of the provisions of the 2023 Act”.
The application continued that first, under the 2023 Act, “the Committee is not authorised to delegate to the registrar its authority under Sections 2, 3 and 4”.
Secondly, it added, that the registrar had no authority under the 2023 Act to determine the maintainability of petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. Justice Naqvi maintained that the apex court has consistently held that maintainability of a petition was to be decided by a bench of this court and not by the registrar.
“Third, the registrar has no authority to decide whether any constitution petition involves interpretation of constitutional provisions. This authority is exclusively vested in the Committee under Sections 3 and 4 of the 2023 Act,” Justice Naqvi concluded.
It was demanded in the letter that “without prejudice to the above, even as per the Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee dated 26.10.2023 (reproduced in the subject notice) a constitution petition involving interpretation of constitutional provisions is to be placed before the Committee”.
“This notice, with respect, establishes that the registrar has not only failed to act by the provisions of the 2023 Act but has also failed to comply with the express directions of the Committee by choosing not to place these petitions before the Committee,” the letter protested.
‘Misconduct proceedings without legal authority’
Three days ago, while vehemently denying the various allegations leveled against him, Justice Naqvi once again requested the apex court to quash the misconduct proceedings initiated against him by the SJC. In his second constitution, Justice Naqvi also requested the court to declare as “without legal authority” the SJC’s second and revised show cause notice issued on November 22.
Separately, the judge also dispatched a letter to a three-member committee of the SC, formed under the newly promulgated Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, to list his constitutional petitions and applications seeking interim relief expeditiously. The judge has reminded the committee that as per the SC act, it is entrusted with the responsibility of listing petitions filed under Article 184(3) within 14 days.
“However, in spite of these petitions and applications having been filed, the SJC is proceeding against me which is seriously prejudicing my constitutional petitions.” “If any order is passed [by the SJC] on the basis of the proceedings, it may frustrate my submissions, agitated in the constitution petitions,” he adds. The judge has requested the committee to list the case for hearing before a bench not including the SC judges that are part of the SJC.
Interestingly, all the three members of the committee — Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Ijazul Ahsan — are part of the five-member SJC that is holding proceedings against Justice Naqvi. On October 21, the SJC with a majority vote of three to two issued a show cause notice to Justice Naqvi while reviewing complaints — ten in total — filed against the SC judge earlier this year. The council asked him to file his reply in 14 days.
On November 10, Justice Naqvi submitted his response to the show cause notice, accusing three SJC members – Justice Isa, Justice Masood, and Balochistan High Court (BHC) Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan – of bias and requesting their recusal. Despite Justice Naqvi’s objections, the SJC set a hearing for November 20 to review the complaints against him. At the end of the next SJC meeting that started on November 20 and continued till November 22, the SJC issued a revised second show cause notice to the judge.
On November 20, Justice Naqvi also lodged a constitution petition in the apex court, contesting the council’s proceedings. He requested the court to nullify the misconduct allegations against him, deeming them “without lawful authority and of no legal effect”. In the petition submitted on Thursday, November 30, the SC judge gave para-wise replies to ten allegations with regard to which the SJC had sought clarification from him on November 22.
While denying all the allegations with regard to listing of cases as well as those related to allegedly wrongful sale and purchase of properties as well as his family sons alleged role as his front men, Justice took serious exception to the use of the word “corruption” in the revised show cause notice. “It is improper and discourteous to use such language regarding a judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. More than the petitioner, use of such language undermines the sanctity and integrity of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
