ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday observed that former judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, was removed from his service in a reference on the basis of admitted facts.
A five-member larger bench, headed by Justice Umer Ata Bandial, heard the petition filed by sacked judge Siddiqui, challenging the notification of president of Pakistan, terminating his service.
Other members of the bench included Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Ijazul Ahsen, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah. Hamid Khan, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that certain parameters were not followed in the instant case, saying the inquiry was not conducted in his client’s case and he was denied the right to a fair trial.
He submitted before issuing show-cause notice, the SJC should have conducted a proper inquiry, but it was not done and he was not provide the right of hearing and cross-examine of the evidence.
Justice Ijazul Ahsen however, observed that the SJC proceeded on facts, adding that the content of the speech, delivered by the petitioner during the bar address, was not even denied. “That’s why the SJC felt that there was no need for conducting an inquiry,” he observed. Hamid Khan contended that Article 184(3) of the Constitution provides a judge the right of inquiry, but unfortunately he was thrown out without conducting proper inquiry into his speech.
Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, another member of the bench, observed that the petitioner judge was removed on the basis of admitted facts. “What inquiry committee could do when admitted facts are available,” Justice Tariq questioned.
Hamid Khan contended that his client had addressed the bar association and did not violate the code of conduct of judges. “But it was also a public gathering, irrespective of the fact that the gathering included the lawyer community,” Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed, adding that whatever allegations were made, were not denied.
Hamid Khan submitted that former chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry had also addressed the bar associations. At this, Justice Umer Ata Bandial told the counsel that Justice Chaudhry used to address while reading out a written speech. “He never made allegations against anyone; so you should not relate his speech with the petitioner judge,” Justice Bandial told Hamid Khan. “You should look into the manner adopted by the petitioner judge,” Justice Bandial told the counsel.
Justice Ijazul Ahsen questioned as to whether a judge should address in such a manner, levelling allegations against the institutions and even his own institution while addressing a gathering. Earlier, Hamid Khan contended that the federation had not yet filed its reply though it was issued a notice.
AG Khalid Javed, present in the courtroom, came to the rostrum and submitted that once the aspect of maintainability of the instant petition was settled, he would file a concise reply. Justice Ijazul Ahsen said that once they hear the counsel for the petitioner judge, they will ask the AG to file a concise statement.
During the proceedings, the bench asked Hamid Khan to read out the speech of the petitioner judge. However, later the bench adjourned the hearing for June 2, 2021. Justice Siddiqui had challenged the SJC decision, recommending his removal from his post over misconduct as well as notification of the government, issued on October 11, 2018, terminating his service.