SC admits plea on publicising SJC references

CJP sets aside registrar’s objections, petitioner wants

ISLAMABAD: After setting aside the objections of the registrar’s office, the Supreme Court has entertained a plea seeking the disclosure of the total number of references and complaints before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against judges of superior courts.

“After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, the office objection is overruled. Let the constitution petition be numbered and fixed before the court whereby the question of maintainability shall be decided. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed,” said Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar in his order over the appeal against the registrar’s May 14, 2016 order to not entertain the petition. Akram Sheikh appeared before the CJP in chambers to argue the case.

Earlier, the registrar office had objected that the petitioner did not approach at appropriate forum available to him under the law. Likewise, it is also objected that prima facie, the petition appears to be frivolous.

The constitutional petition was moved under Article 184 (3) of the constitution by then-Punjab Bar Council executive committee chairman Mumtaz Mustafa through Sheikh.



The petition requested the apex court to direct the SJC to dispose of all references filed against judges as expeditiously as possible.

The petitioner also prayed the apex court to publically disclose the total number of references and complaints filed before it since its constitution, the number of cases where proceedings were initiated, how many references and complaints were dropped after consideration, and how many references and complaints have become infructuous.

It is contended that the council has a unique place in the country’s constitutional structure as it is has been given the responsibility of ensuring the accountability of an organ of the state that has been given the ultimate duty of constitutional interpretation, enforcement of all fundamental rights, and as a necessary corollary, the rule of law.

“It is for this reason that the silence of the [SJC] in this regard is of serious concern to the bar and citizens. To say that judges must be independent enough to render impartial justice and resist intimidation is not to say that they must be so independent as to be unaccountable, for judicial accountability is a safe system of the administration of justice, hence this petition.”



It was submitted that it is a prerequisite for ensuring the independence of the judiciary that judges are able to make judicial pronouncements without fear or favour.

The petitioner further stated that a judge against whom a reference or complaint under Article 209 of the Constitution has been filed can be amenable to pressures and exploitation, therefore, he can readily compromise his integrity, impartiality and independence. “It is, therefore, imperative that all references or complaints under Article 209 of the Constitution must be decided as expeditiously as possible,” the petition adds.

“All references or complaints must be fixed for hearing before the respondent within a week of receipt thereof, and those which are not worthy of proceeding further must be rejected, while others must be decided within a period of one month. In the meanwhile, if the facts and circumstances of the complaint so warrant, an appropriate order such as removal of judicial work from the judge against whom a reference or complaint worthy of proceeding is pending, should be passed,” it says.



The petition says that every citizen has a fundamental right to have access to information in all matters of public importance as guaranteed by Article 19A of the Constitution, but basic information regarding the total number of references under Article 209 and the current status of those references and complaints has not been disclosed by the SJC.

“While it may be in the public interest to withhold information about the nature of any particular complaint so as to avoid scandalising a judge for as long as they serve on the bench, there is no justification for withholding information regarding the total number of complaints received by the respondent, the period of time during which such complaints were received, and their status.



It is also submitted that violation of Article 19A of the Constitution also leads to an apprehension of violation of other fundamental rights of the citizens including the right to a fair trial and the right to due process as embodied in Article 10A and Article 9 of the Constitution, respectively.

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar, will also take up a plea in this week against former CJP Anwar Zaheer Jamali’s order to not entertain a similar petition. The petition was filed by Raheel Kamran Sheikh.