Naqvi files second plea against SJC

While vehemently denying the various allegations leveled against him, Supreme Court judge Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi has once again requested the apex court to quash the misconduct proceedings initiated against him by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). In his second constitution petition filed on Thursday, Justice Naqvi has also requested the court to declare as “without legal authority” the SJC’s second and revised show cause notice issued on Nov 22.

Separately, the judge has also dispatched a letter to a three-member committee of the Supreme Court formed under the newly promulgated Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 to list his constitutional petitions and applications seeking interim relief expeditiously. The judge has reminded the committee that as per the SC act, it is entrusted with the responsibility of listing petitions filed under Article 184(3) within 14 days.

“However, in spite of these petitions and applications having been filed, the SJC is proceeding against me which is seriously prejudicing my constitutional petitions.” “If any order is passed [by the SJC] on the basis of the proceedings, it may frustrate my submissions, agitated in the constitution petitions,” he adds. The judge has requested the committee to list the case for hearing before a bench not including the SC judges that are part of the SJC.

Read SJC hears complainants’ version in Naqvi case

Interestingly, all the three members of the committee—Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Ijazul Ahsan—are part of the five-member SJC that is holding proceedings against Justice Naqvi. On October 21, the SJC with a majority vote of three to two issued a show cause notice to Justice Naqvi while reviewing complaints—ten in total—filed against the SC judge earlier this year. The council asked him to file his reply in 14 days.

On November 10, Justice Naqvi submitted his response to the show cause notice, accusing three SJC members – Justice Isa, Justice Masood, and Balochistan High Court (BHC) Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan – of bias and requesting their recusal. Despite Justice Naqvi's objections, the SJC set a hearing for November 20 to review the complaints against him. At the end of the next SJC meeting that started on November 20 and continued till November 22, the SJC issued a revised second show cause notice to the judge.

On November 20, Justice Naqvi also lodged a constitution petition in the apex court, contesting the council’s proceedings. He requested the court to nullify the misconduct allegations against him, deeming them “without lawful authority and of no legal effect”. In the petition submitted on Thursday, November 30, the SC judge gave para-wise replies to ten allegations with regard to which the SJC had sought clarification from him on November 22.

While denying all the allegations with regard to listing of cases as well as those related to allegedly wrongful sale and purchase of properties as well as his family sons alleged role as his front men, Justice took serious exception to the use of the word "corruption" in the revised show cause notice. “It is improper and discourteous to use such language regarding a judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. More than the petitioner, use of such language undermines the sanctity and integrity of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Read  SJC issues another show cause to Justice Naqvi

“Use of such language is evidence of the [biases] and partiality of the members of SJC,” he stated. The petition stated that none of the so-called complaints disclose any case against the petitioner. “These cannot form the basis of a show cause notice. Had the SJC examined the co-called complaints, it would have [become] obvious that no case for issuing a show cause notice was made out.”

The judge noted that undue haste in conducting proceedings against him without first deciding his legal and constitutional objections and providing him the essential material establish that the SJC proceedings are unfair. “He is being denied a fair hearing in contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed, inter alia, under Article 4, 9, 10A, 14 and 25 of the Constitution,” he stated.

The judge also referred to the "malicious campaign" lodged against him prior to filing of the complaints. He declared them a “direct and blatant attack on the independence of judiciary”. “These are violative of and inconsistent with the right to access justice guaranteed under Article 4, 9 and 10A of the Constitution,” he added.  The judge requested the court to suspend the SJC proceeding until it decides on his petitions.