Historic move: SJC to conduct open trial of Justice Shaukat Siddiqui
Complaint against the IHC judge has been pending since 2015
Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui. PHOTO: MUHAMMAD JAVAID / EXPRESS
ISLAMABAD:
In a historic first, the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Saturday accepted a petition of Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui for holding an open trial of a corruption reference against him.
The council will start recording evidence in the case from July 30.
Sources revealed to The Express Tribune that the SJC — a constitutional body tasked with scrutinising conduct of superior court judges — accepted Justice Siddiqui’s plea to conduct inquiry regarding his misconduct in open court.
The complaint against the IHC judge has been pending since 2015 in which several charges were framed against him. There are eight allegations against him.
CJP does not have right to ridicule judges: IHC judge
Justice Siddiqui is facing a reference on misconduct moved on the complaint by a retired employee of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) for alleged refurbishment of official residence beyond entitlement, allotment of a house, appointment of a research officer, Mumtaz Qadri’s matter, scolding government officials, and SC judge Justice Asif Saeed Khosa’s judgment regarding him and plot allotted to his alleged friend.
In February, the SJC served another show-cause notice on Justice Siddiqui for questioning the role of the ‘constitutional institution’ in the matter relating to the Faizabad sit-in last year.
The council; however, rejected the reply submitted by the judge in this regard. Hamid Khan is appearing on his behalf.
On February 21, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar announced that all complaints against superior courts judges in the SJC will be decided by June. However, several complaints remain undecided.
The SJC on May 18, 2017, dismissed his plea seeking an open trial.
Later, the IHC judge filed a 14-page constitutional petition, requesting the Supreme Court to declare that the SJC’s May 18 order was passed without lawful authority.
He also pleaded that the court suspend the SJC proceedings against him till a decision is made on his petition.
The judge also requested that the SJC be told that he has a fundamental right to insist that an inquiry into his conduct be held publicly.
The petition states that the council’s May 18 order, by upholding paragraph 13(1) of the SJC Procedure of Inquiry 2005, that permits the proceedings of the council in-camera, 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.
The top court’s larger bench, headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat, while hearing the matter on May 10 remanded the matter of holding in-camera trials of judges to the SJC for reconsideration. A larger bench has also given certain guidelines in its verdict to hold inquiry regarding the superior courts judges.
The order says that the SJC is not a court, but more akin to a domestic tribunal the proceedings of which 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.
SJC calls in IHC judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui
“The inquiry before the SJC is neither a spectator sport nor can there be any requirement of proceedings being conducted in a courtroom… [The] SJC is not a court but a domestic tribunal conducting administrative proceedings,” said the order.
It is learnt that in compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment, the council has decided to conduct inquiry in open hearing.
Legal experts say that it is not binding on the SJC that every inquiry related to misconduct of a judge be conducted in public. It is the council’s discretion and how and when inquiry should be held public.
It is to be noted that no superior court judge has been removed by the SJC since the 1970s.
In a historic first, the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Saturday accepted a petition of Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui for holding an open trial of a corruption reference against him.
The council will start recording evidence in the case from July 30.
Sources revealed to The Express Tribune that the SJC — a constitutional body tasked with scrutinising conduct of superior court judges — accepted Justice Siddiqui’s plea to conduct inquiry regarding his misconduct in open court.
The complaint against the IHC judge has been pending since 2015 in which several charges were framed against him. There are eight allegations against him.
CJP does not have right to ridicule judges: IHC judge
Justice Siddiqui is facing a reference on misconduct moved on the complaint by a retired employee of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) for alleged refurbishment of official residence beyond entitlement, allotment of a house, appointment of a research officer, Mumtaz Qadri’s matter, scolding government officials, and SC judge Justice Asif Saeed Khosa’s judgment regarding him and plot allotted to his alleged friend.
In February, the SJC served another show-cause notice on Justice Siddiqui for questioning the role of the ‘constitutional institution’ in the matter relating to the Faizabad sit-in last year.
The council; however, rejected the reply submitted by the judge in this regard. Hamid Khan is appearing on his behalf.
On February 21, Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar announced that all complaints against superior courts judges in the SJC will be decided by June. However, several complaints remain undecided.
The SJC on May 18, 2017, dismissed his plea seeking an open trial.
Later, the IHC judge filed a 14-page constitutional petition, requesting the Supreme Court to declare that the SJC’s May 18 order was passed without lawful authority.
He also pleaded that the court suspend the SJC proceedings against him till a decision is made on his petition.
The judge also requested that the SJC be told that he has a fundamental right to insist that an inquiry into his conduct be held publicly.
The petition states that the council’s May 18 order, by upholding paragraph 13(1) of the SJC Procedure of Inquiry 2005, that permits the proceedings of the council in-camera, 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.
The top court’s larger bench, headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat, while hearing the matter on May 10 remanded the matter of holding in-camera trials of judges to the SJC for reconsideration. A larger bench has also given certain guidelines in its verdict to hold inquiry regarding the superior courts judges.
The order says that the SJC is not a court, but more akin to a domestic tribunal the proceedings of which 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.
SJC calls in IHC judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui
“The inquiry before the SJC is neither a spectator sport nor can there be any requirement of proceedings being conducted in a courtroom… [The] SJC is not a court but a domestic tribunal conducting administrative proceedings,” said the order.
It is learnt that in compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment, the council has decided to conduct inquiry in open hearing.
Legal experts say that it is not binding on the SJC that every inquiry related to misconduct of a judge be conducted in public. It is the council’s discretion and how and when inquiry should be held public.
It is to be noted that no superior court judge has been removed by the SJC since the 1970s.