CJ forms bench to hear IHC ex-judge’s plea

Apex court to take up justice Shaukat Siddiqui’s petition on Feb 13

ISLAMABAD: The country’s top judge – Justice Gulzar Ahmed – has constituted a larger bench to hear former Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s petition against his removal by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

President Dr Arif Alvi on Oct 11, 2018 removed Justice Siddiqui on the recommendation of the SJC, headed by former chief justice Mian Saqib Nisar for misconduct.

Justice SIddiqui in his speech at the Rawalpindi District Bar Association on July 21, 2018 targeted the country’s top spy agency and accused it of manipulating benches.

Later, a reference was filed against him at the SJC which ruled that the judge had displayed a “conduct unbecoming of a high court judge”. The SJC is the only forum that can hold a superior court judge accountable. It comprises three top Supreme Court judges and two top judges of provincial high courts.



Interestingly, Justice Siddiqui is the only judge in the country’s history to be removed from his position after an SJC inquiry. A presidential reference against a Supreme Court judge, Qazi Faez Isa, is also pending with the SJC while a SC full-court is hearing a number of petitions against the reference.

Now a SC larger bench – headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Faisal Arab, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel will take up Siddiqui’s constitution petition on February 13. Justice Bandial is also heading full-court in the Justice Isa case

Hamid Khan will appear on behalf of the former LHC judge.

In his petition, Siddiqui contended that he had been sacked without a proper inquiry to prove the claims he made during his controversial speech at the Rawalpindi Bar Association. Challenging his removal, Siddiqui raised serious allegations of ‘bias’ against the former CJP, who was also the SJC chairman.

In the 30-page appeal, the former judge explained the context in which he was compelled to address the bar association and utter remarks about alleged involvement of certain officers from the executive organ of the state in affairs of the judiciary and alleged manipulation in formation of benches.



“The remarks made by the petitioner [Mr Siddiqui] were an honest attempt demanded by his conscience to counter the challenges posed to the independence of the judiciary,” the appeal argued.

In the appeal, Siddiqui recalled how he had issued orders on June 29 and Aug 18 to clear roads and a green belt outside the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) headquarters.

Consequently, he added, a senior official of the ISI — named in the petition — visited him at his residence and asked him to review the decision and when he refused, expressed annoyance.

Subsequently, the appeal said, another high-ranking official of the ISI — also named in the petition — approached the former judge at his residence on June 29 to apologise the conduct of his subordinate and suggested some guidance to protect the prestige of the institution by modifying the orders.

The petition said the former judge had explained that he could not go beyond his orders and, therefore, the same should be respected and implemented unless set aside or modified by the Supreme Court.

Seeing his reluctance, the petition contended, the high-ranking official agreed and assured that the ISI would proceed in accordance with the law, but requested others present in the room to leave as he intended to talk to the former judge in private.

Thereafter, the petition said, the ISI official inquired about the procedure of hearing of appeals filed by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif in the high court against his conviction by an accountability court.



It was quite strange that how the ISI official was so certain about the conviction of the accused, but the former judge exercised restraint, it said.

Siddiqui wondered when the ISI officer was aware of the legal procedure and certain about the outcome of the trial then why he was asking about it. He claimed that the officer straightaway asked him what would be his view in case the appeals of Nawaz Sharif came before him.

According to Mr Siddiqui’s petition, he replied that the cases were decided as per the oath administered to every judge and purely on merit instead of any other consideration.

He said he had told the officer that in case the matter came before him it would be decided purely on merit as he was answerable to Allah. In response, the petition said, comments passed by the officer were shocking and highly deplorable.

The petition alleged that the officer had conceded that influence was used to remove the judge from the bench he was heading as there were apprehensions that he might decide in favour of Nawaz.

The officer also sought an assurance from him that the bail plea of the former prime minister would not be taken up before the general election 2018 and on receiving the same reply that the matter would be decided in accordance with the law, the officer left, the petition said.

On both occasions, the officer came on the official vehicle of the ICT administration.

The petition highlighted that the former judge had personally approached the IHC chief justice three times regarding alleged manipulation in constitution of the high court’s benches.

Siddiqui pleaded in the petition that his conduct did not warrant such harsh step of his removal from the office of a permanent high court judge.

The petition contended that the SJC considered the letter of the IHC chief justice as gospel truth against him despite the fact that it was not an affidavit. It said later the chief justice was exonerated from all references he was facing.

The former judge said in the petition that it was obligatory upon the SJC to probe the allegations levelled by him in the interest of justice in a properly conducted trial to uphold the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, which was the basic feature of the Constitution.