Plots allotment to judges a favour, misconduct: ex-CJ

ISLAMABAD: Revered former Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice (R) Jawwad S Khawaja has said that the policy of allotment of residential plots to a selected few classes, enjoying influence, is unfair and unjust but in case of judges of the superior judiciary it is not in accordance with the code of conduct.

The former CJ, who did not accept any such offer from the government while his colleagues in the apex court were allotted two residential plots each in Islamabad as part of a policy, said the government can’t have such policy where the state resources are bestowed upon a selected few but influential classes of the society.

“In the case of judges of the superior judiciary, accepting the offer of allotment of even a single plot, in my view, is violation of judges’ code of conduct,” he said, adding that the judges could not accept anything beyond what is offered to them under the Presidential Order (pension, salary and privileges).

Justice ® Khawaja was contacted by The News on Wednesday after one of his associates in LUMS contacted this correspondent to clarify that Khawaja did not get any plot from the government. The News, in its recent story -- “Vilification campaign against Justice Ejaz Afzal has no grounds” -- has erroneously mentioned that Justice ® Khawaja was an only exception to have declined to get second plot in Islamabad. In actual, he did not get even a single plot nor did he desire for any such favour from the government.

Justice ® Khawaja said that although the policy of allotment of plots to a few selected classes of the society is unfair, the judges who take oath under the constitution simply could not accept such offers under any policy. 

“It’s like favouring the judges,” Khawaja said, explaining that how could judges accept the plot from the government against whom they have to hear cases every day.

The retired Justice referred to “Article VIII” of the Code of Conduct for Judges to state that in his opinion accepting any favour by a judge from anyone violates this Article as well as the oath of the judges. The Article reads as: “"Gifts are to be received only from near relatives and close friends, and only such as are customary. Everything in the way of favours in consequence of the office must be refused. In accepting any entertainment offered, whether general or particular, care should be taken that its real purpose does not conflict with a Judge's duty to maintain detachment from likely litigants, and from partisan activity."

In a separate email message sent to this correspondent by his associate, Mr Asher Qazi, he referred to a petition of Awami Workers Party (AWP), filed in the SC challenging, among other things, the demolition of Karchi abadi in I-11 and the Federation’s neglect in providing low income housing.

The email explained that apart from other constitutional provisions, the petitioner relied upon Article 38 (d) of the Constitution which requires the State to, “provide basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical relief, for all such citizens irrespective of sex, caste, creed or race, as are permanently or temporarily unable to earn their livelihood on account of infirmity, sickness or unemployment.”

The email added that it is important to highlight the constitutional provision relied upon by the AWP is a “principle of policy” which has historically been held to be unenforceable in Court (Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution).  The rationale behind this is that fulfillment of any principle of policy requires the availability of adequate resources and the executive/parliament (and not a court) is best tasked with deciding how these resources will be allocated.

“This rationale is seamless and makes sense. However, one can legitimately question its practical application when Pakistani decision makers at the very top (politicians, senior bureaucrats, army generals, judges, journalists etc.) who are presumably already drawing many benefits from the State, continue to appropriate valuable resources like public land while the people at the very bottom of society have no roof over their head,” the email read.