AGP office submits additional evidence to SJC

Supreme Court likely to take up petition of the IHC judge by the next week

ISLAMABAD: Office of the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) – which acts as prosecution in cases related to alleged misconduct by superior courts judges – has submitted an additional list of witnesses and evidences before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against a judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

Sources revealed to The Express Tribune that Maulvi Anwarul Haq, who has been deputed as special prosecutor in the IHC’s judge case, filed different applications before the council for submitting additional charges, evidences and witnesses.



Despite the opposition by Hamid Khan – counsel for the IHC’s judge – to submission of additional charges after the issuance of the show-cause notice, the council allowed the AGP office’s applications. The matter has been adjourned till the first week of November for recording of evidences.

It is learnt that the Supreme Court registrar has also allotted number to the judge’s constitutional petition (29/2017) in which he has requested the top court to be given an option for open trial by the council. Earlier, he also submitted a written plea to the SJC, requesting the body to postpone its proceedings till the court's decision on his petition.

It is expected that the apex court will take up the petition in the coming week. Makhdoom Ali Khan and Hamid Khan will argue on behalf of the IHC judge. Legal experts believe that the composition of the bench in this matter will be significant as the council’s members cannot be part of that bench.



The IHC’s judge has requested the Supreme Court for his open trial by the SJC. On May 18, the SJC dismissed his plea for an open trial. In his 14-page petition, he has requested the SC to void the SJC’s May 18 order. He has also asked the court to suspend SJC proceedings till a decision on his petition.

The judge has also requested that the SJC be told that he has a fundamental right to insist that an inquiry into his conduct be carried out publicly. He has said the council’s May 18 order, by upholding paragraph 13 (1) of the SJC Procedure of Inquiry 2005, violates Article 10-A of the Constitution, adding that Article 10-A provides every citizen with the right to a fair trial and due process.

“It is not in the interests of the judiciary if the proceedings are held in camera. It will damage the image of the institution. The guardians of justice cannot deny their brethren the protection of a public hearing and due process,” says the petition.