SC reserves the verdict of Shaukat Aziz’s case

Islamabad: Supreme Court (SC) has resumed the hearing of a plea of the former judge of Islamabad High Court (IHC) Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui against his dismissal.

According to the details, a five-judge bench of the court, led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, is hearing the plea.

Siddiqui’s lawyer Hamid Khan said that their case was about the Supreme Judicial Council conducting an inquiry first, as they would have got an opportunity to question former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lieutenant General retired Faiz Hameed. 

Faez Isa asked if the judge could be removed even if his accusations proved correct during the inquiry in spite of the fact that he made those accusations in public.

Hamid Khan asked the court to quash the initial proceedings against Shaukat Siddiqui. After that, a commission should be formed and an inquiry conducted afresh.

The CJP asked if the matter could be referred back to the Supreme Judicial Council. Hamid Khan replied in the affirmative.

Faiz Hameed’s lawyer Khawaja Haris said there were two different sides to this issue, one of which is that Shaukat Siddiqui levelled allegations in public.

The CJP said the allegations were also serious, adding that it was also a matter of independence of the judiciary. “You also agree that a judge should not be removed without a valid reason,” he questioned.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel asked if it was appropriate for a judge to level allegations the way he did, adding that the judge did not deny the speech.

CJP Isa stated that If a judge is removed only on the basis of a speech, half of the judiciary would go home. The text of the speech had to be seen, further saying that if the proceedings against the judge were quashed it would be akin to accepting his allegations as true.

Hamid Khan said that the report against Shaukat Siddiqui should be annulled and the matter remanded to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

Khawaja Haris said Shaukat Siddiqui was no longer a judge so his case could not be sent to the SJC. The chief justice of the IHC had refused Siddiqui’s allegations. If someone had approached Shaukat Siddiqui, he should have issued a contempt notice.

Qazi Faiz stated that maybe he was frustrated to the point that he decided to go public. The case pertained to the independence of judiciary, both Faiz Hameed and Shaukat Siddiqui belonged to institutions run on public money.

On the issue of the authority to proceed against a retired judge in the Supreme Judicial Council, the federation filed a request in the Aafia Sheherbano case, which terminated the authority to proceed against a retired judge.

The attorney general for Pakistan informed the court about filing the appeal. The Officials said that if the verdict in the Aafia Sheherbano case was annulled, the present pattern could be sent to the SJC.

Justice retired Anwar Kasi's lawyer Wasim Sajjad stated that the Constitution did not prevent the Supreme Court from remanding back a case.

Hamid Khan said this was the first case of its kind where a judge was removed without an inquiry. A detailed decision was needed on why an inquiry was necessary before removing a judge, he added.

According to the 1956 and 1962 constitutions, a judge could not be removed without a presidential reference, Hamid Khan said that the same condition existed in the 1973 Constitution also.

Hamid further stated that in 2005, a mechanism other than a presidential reference was introduced in the Constitution for the first time, adding that when Shaukat Siddiqui made the allegations, proceedings against former judge Anwar Kasi were underway in the Supreme Judicial Council.

Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi asked if there was still a need for an inquiry when a judge's speech was clear and available. He remarked that there were also allegations of corruption against Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui.

“An inquiry is necessary in the case of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui,” said counsel Hamid Khan.

Justice Mandokhel asked in what capacity the registrar can write a note to the SJC against a judge.

Justice Rizvi said the Supreme Court itself took notice of the case. “Should an inquiry be held even when the council acts on its own?” the judge asked.

The CJP remarked that the Supreme Court was not a watchdog on the Supreme Judicial Council, adding that the court has to maintain the balance created by authors of the constitution. The apex court only intervened over constitutional violations.

“In the present case, one has to be very careful so that the constitutional balance between the institutions is not disturbed,” the CJP remarked.

In a response submitted to the SC through lawyer Khawaja Harris, Faiz Hameed disproved the claims that Shaukat Aziz mentioned a supposed meeting before the Judicial Council in his speech.

The alleged meeting’s plea made by Siddiqui was apparently rejected, and Faiz claimed that he never called the former judge.

Former Chief Justice of IHC, Justice retired Anwar Kasi, also submitted a response rejecting the accusations made by Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui. Brigadier retired Irfan Ramey’s response was also presented, where he denied the allegations and meetings put forward by Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui.

Justice Anwar claimed that no secret agency tried to influence during his tenure. Shaukat Siddiqui did not provide material supporting the accusations.

It is to be noted that Faiz Hameed had vigorously refused the allegations of influencing the judiciary in this case.