Maintainability of plea: SC to decide fate of LHC judge’s petition

SJC served a show-cause notice on the judge on April 19.


Hasnaat Malik May 11, 2016
Supreme Court. PHOTO: EXPRESS/FILE

ISLAMABAD: The fate of a Lahore High Court (LHC) judge’s constitutional petition will be decided by the bench of the Supreme Court.

Justice Amir Hani Muslim heard the appeal of the serving high court judge on Monday against the SC registrar’s order for rejecting his constitutional petition against a show-cause notice served by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

Raza Kazim, the counsel for the LHC judge, argued the matter in his chamber. However, Justice Hani referred the appeal against the registrar office objections to the bench.

It is learnt that the LHC judge will move another application, requesting the chief justice to constitute a larger bench to decide the maintainability of his plea.

The SJC served a show-cause notice on the LHC judge on April 19 under sub-para (1) of para 9 of the SJC’s Procedure of Enquiry, 2005, for an alleged misconduct. The council directed the judge to submit a reply within 14 days.

In response, the LHC judge filed a constitutional petition in the top court against the SJC’s notice and all proceedings that led to the council’s action. But the SC registrar returned the petition after raising four objections to the plea.

The registrar office stated that the petition was not maintainable due to bar of jurisdiction under Article 211 of the Constitution, which says, “The proceedings before the council, its report to the president and the removal of a judge under clause (6) of Article 209 shall not be called in question in any court.”

Published in The Express Tribune, May 11th, 2016.

COMMENTS (1)

Jibran | 7 years ago | Reply Terrible reporting. "The fate of a Lahore High Court (LHC) judge"... Would you care to share the name of the judge and other details as to why he was given the show cause notice?
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ