LHC judge challenges SJC hearing
Cites pending hearing against council member, constitutionality of body
Lahore High Court. PHOTO: EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
Latest, JudA Lahore High Court (LHC) judge has challenged the Supreme Judicial Council’s misconduct proceedings against him.
LHC judge Justice Farrukh Irfan Khan has filed a constitutional petition under Article 184 (3) making the SJC and the federal government respondents. The SJC initiated proceedings against him after his name appeared in the Panama Papers last year.
Earlier, Islamabad High Court judge Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui approached the SC against the in-camera proceedings of the council against him. A larger bench, headed by Justice Gulzar Ahmad, is still hearing that case.
The LHC judge has requested that the SC declare that the proceedings held before the council with the participation of IHC Chief Justice Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi are declared null as they go against provisions of Clause (3) of Article 209 of the Constitution as misconduct charges are also pending against CJ Kasi.
SC seeks govt response on judge’s open trial plea
The judge also pleaded the SC to declare that he has a fundamental right to insist that an inquiry into his conduct be held by a properly and constitutionally constituted council without the inclusion of a member barred from sitting on the council under Clause (3) of Article 209 of the Constitution.
Likewise, it is prayed that all the orders passed by the “unconstitutionally constituted council” are without lawful authority and liable to be quashed, and all orders passed by the council under Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Enquiry, 2005 are unconstitutional and of no legal effect.
The judge contended that the SJC lacks jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of a judge based on his judicial orders, particularly those upheld by the Supreme Court, adding that the council cannot inquire into a complaint filed against the conduct of a judge if it is not supported by any prima facie material, documents or evidence of alleged misconduct.
Supreme Judicial Council looks into LHC judge’s misconduct
The petition states that under the doctrine of independence of the judiciary, judicial orders of a judge are protected and the council cannot inquire into the conduct of a judge merely on the basis of their decisions, particularly orders that have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
“All proceedings before any court, tribunal or other fora have to be in accordance with Article 10-A and no fundamental right or article of the organic law can be abridged by the Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Inquiry,” it is further stated.
The petition contends that every word of the Constitution is supposed to be read, construed and interpreted and not a single word of the Constitution can be considered redundant, superfluous or nugatory. This is the established principle of interpretation of the Constitution. The Council while placing a very narrow construction of Clause (3) of Article 209 has virtually made Clause (3) superfluous, unnecessary and nugatory.
It is contended that it has been laid down by the Supreme Court itself that one appeal, at least, cannot be denied to a person and such denial is both unconstitutional and un-Islamic. It cannot be fairly either assessed or held that an “inquiry” which affects not only the livelihood but also the life of a judge and his reputation for generations has no bearing on his civil rights.
Female LHC judge challenges decision to not confirm her
“The council has been created under Article 209 of the Constitution. The constitution did not grant it powers to create a procedure for its conduct. No other law confers such power. The Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Inquiry was created by the council itself. It has neither any constitutional nor statutory cover. The procedure is, therefore, without lawful authority and also beyond the powers of the Constitution.
It is further submitted that the council is not a court, and therefore does not enjoy, nor could be assumed to have, the powers of a court.
Latest, JudA Lahore High Court (LHC) judge has challenged the Supreme Judicial Council’s misconduct proceedings against him.
LHC judge Justice Farrukh Irfan Khan has filed a constitutional petition under Article 184 (3) making the SJC and the federal government respondents. The SJC initiated proceedings against him after his name appeared in the Panama Papers last year.
Earlier, Islamabad High Court judge Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui approached the SC against the in-camera proceedings of the council against him. A larger bench, headed by Justice Gulzar Ahmad, is still hearing that case.
The LHC judge has requested that the SC declare that the proceedings held before the council with the participation of IHC Chief Justice Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi are declared null as they go against provisions of Clause (3) of Article 209 of the Constitution as misconduct charges are also pending against CJ Kasi.
SC seeks govt response on judge’s open trial plea
The judge also pleaded the SC to declare that he has a fundamental right to insist that an inquiry into his conduct be held by a properly and constitutionally constituted council without the inclusion of a member barred from sitting on the council under Clause (3) of Article 209 of the Constitution.
Likewise, it is prayed that all the orders passed by the “unconstitutionally constituted council” are without lawful authority and liable to be quashed, and all orders passed by the council under Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Enquiry, 2005 are unconstitutional and of no legal effect.
The judge contended that the SJC lacks jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of a judge based on his judicial orders, particularly those upheld by the Supreme Court, adding that the council cannot inquire into a complaint filed against the conduct of a judge if it is not supported by any prima facie material, documents or evidence of alleged misconduct.
Supreme Judicial Council looks into LHC judge’s misconduct
The petition states that under the doctrine of independence of the judiciary, judicial orders of a judge are protected and the council cannot inquire into the conduct of a judge merely on the basis of their decisions, particularly orders that have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
“All proceedings before any court, tribunal or other fora have to be in accordance with Article 10-A and no fundamental right or article of the organic law can be abridged by the Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Inquiry,” it is further stated.
The petition contends that every word of the Constitution is supposed to be read, construed and interpreted and not a single word of the Constitution can be considered redundant, superfluous or nugatory. This is the established principle of interpretation of the Constitution. The Council while placing a very narrow construction of Clause (3) of Article 209 has virtually made Clause (3) superfluous, unnecessary and nugatory.
It is contended that it has been laid down by the Supreme Court itself that one appeal, at least, cannot be denied to a person and such denial is both unconstitutional and un-Islamic. It cannot be fairly either assessed or held that an “inquiry” which affects not only the livelihood but also the life of a judge and his reputation for generations has no bearing on his civil rights.
Female LHC judge challenges decision to not confirm her
“The council has been created under Article 209 of the Constitution. The constitution did not grant it powers to create a procedure for its conduct. No other law confers such power. The Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Inquiry was created by the council itself. It has neither any constitutional nor statutory cover. The procedure is, therefore, without lawful authority and also beyond the powers of the Constitution.
It is further submitted that the council is not a court, and therefore does not enjoy, nor could be assumed to have, the powers of a court.