Apex court looks to SJC for reconsideration of in-camera trials

‘Judges like Ceasar’s wives ought to be above suspicion’

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has remanded the matter of holding in-camera trials for judges to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) for reconsideration.

The five-judge larger bench headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed has given the ruling on a constitutional petition filed by Islamabad High Court Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui and Lahore High Court judge Justice Farrukh Irfan.

The question regarding the conduct of proceedings through an open trial as requested by the petitioners needs to be revisited and decided afresh by the SJC, notwithstanding and uninfluenced by its order dated May 18, 2017 in light of the observations made by the apex court, says the 77-page judgment passed by the bench.

Earlier, on May 18, 2017, the SJC while issuing a 12-page order observed that it is in the larger interest of judiciary that the proceedings are not conducted in open court, as the issue brought before the SJC and the allegations levelled may ultimately prove false or vexatious.

The council further observed that the SJC does not determine the civil or criminal liabilities of a judge against whom proceedings are being conducted. Therefore, the request for an open trial of the proceedings on the touchstone of Articles 4, 10-A and 25 of the Constitution is not well founded.

Later, the IHC judge had challenged the council’s the order before the apex court. The court has justified that the in-camera trial of superior courts’ judges in many of reasons. However, it rejected the LHC judge’s plea that the council has no authority to frame rules for conducting an inquiry. The bench accepted the contention of Makhdoom Ali Khan, who was appearing on behalf of the IHC judge.



Legal experts said that judgment stated that the right to a fair trial does not necessarily mean an open or public trial, but it includes in camera proceedings. They added that the council may consider the option of open hearing at any stage if the accused judge requests so.

The lawyers are questioning the court’s observation that the right to information has not been properly interoperated to reflect its true scope.

However, the court said that if there is a reasonable apprehension that the judge whose capacity or conduct is being inquired into or his lawyers are likely to indulge in scandalous allegations against the SJC or its members, the SJC can always direct that the proceedings before being conducted in camera, even if such Judge has waived his privilege of in camera proceedings.

“Such a course of action would be in accordance with the well-recognized and established exceptions to open justice…a person whose conduct and capacity are being inquired into, if any of the aforesaid exceptions, in the information of the SJC exist,” read the order.

The order says that the obvious purpose of in camera proceeding is the protection of the rights and reputation of the person whose conduct and capacity are being inquired into and the protection of the judiciary, including the members of the SJC.



The order says that the SJC is not a court but more akin to a domestic tribunal, whose proceedings primarily are administrative in nature. The concept of openness attributable to a court does not necessarily apply in its entire amplitude to administrative proceedings before a domestic tribunal.

“The inquiry before the SJC is neither a spectator sport nor can there be any requirement of proceedings being conducted in a courtroom…SJC is not a court but a domestic tribunal conducting administrative proceedings,” said the order.

The court says that the purpose and true intent of paragraph 13 of the SJC Procedure of Enquiry 2005, which alone would hold the key to its proper contextualized interpretation. Various countries of the world have chosen either of two paths with regard to the process of accountability of superior court judges.

Furthermore, the court says that the purpose of in camera proceedings is to protect a judge whose conduct and capacity are being inquired into from slander and baseless allegations.

“We cannot lose sight of the fact that the Members of the SJC are also the chief justice and senior judges of the Supreme Court, and the senior-most chief justices of high courts whose reputation need to be protected from baseless attacks,” said the judgment.

“It is said that judges, like Caesar’s wives, ought to be above suspicion. An allegation no matter how baseless, if permitted to be made public, such a judge and his capacity to dispense justice would be irreparably prejudiced,” reads the order.