Sacked judge case adjourned sine die: Who else to protect institutions if we don’t, says CJP

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) Thursday observed that the sacked Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui chose a public forum for levelling allegations against the judiciary and institutions.

A five-member larger bench, headed by Justice Umer Ata Bandial, heard the petition filed by the sacked judge, challenging the notification terminating his service. Justice Bandial remarked: “We have to protect the institutions of the country, and if we did not, then who will protect them.”

Hamid Khan, counsel for Siddiqui, continued his arguments and submitted that the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) removed his client on the basis of a show-cause notice and the replies of the petitioner.

He submitted that the Council was required to conduct an inquiry into the matter before issuing show-cause notice; however, it was not done as required under the law.

Hamid contended that the SJC did not hold an inquiry into the matter fearing that if it was done so, the petitioner may ask for summoning the generals. “In order to avoid the situation, the SJC avoided conducting an inquiry,” Hamid Khan submitted.

Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, another member of the bench, asked the counsel his client should have issued contempt notices to the army officials meeting him at his residence. Hamid Khan replied that the matter was also brought into the notice of the then chief justices, but they also did not issue contempt notices.

He submitted that the letter written to the chief justice was available on the record. “But that latter you wrote after making the speech in the public,” Justice Bandial told Hamid Khan. Hamid Khan added that the written report was available in their additional documents.

Justice Bandial observed that “if a judge does something wrong, then the trial of whole judiciary begins.” He remarked that the petitioner had done wrong by choosing the public forum for venting out his grievances.

The judge continued that Shaukat Siddiqui used to meet the intelligence officials secretly. “When he could write to the chief justice for constitution of the bench, then why he did not inform the CJP on this matter as well,” Justice Bandial asked.

Hamid Khan submitted that whatever his client faced, he revealed at the public forum fearlessly. “Revealing to the public is not bravery but tantamount to surrender,” Justice Bandial told the counsel.

Hamid Khan submitted that the speech of his client was not meant for maligning the judiciary but to improve the judicial system. Justice Ijazul Ahsen, another member of the bench, told the counsel that it would have been better had the petitioner informed the chief justice about the situation he was facing.

Hamid Khan submitted that as per his client, he tried four times for getting an appointment with the then chief justice Mian Saqib Nisar, but his request for a meeting was not considered.

Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing sine die. Justice Bandial observed that they are very much cautious of June 30 whereby the petitioner is going to retire and for that purpose, the instant matter would be fixed again for hearing subject to the availability of the bench.