The top court on Friday dismissed the plea of its judge, Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, to stay the proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against him initiated over charges of misconduct.
The first open hearing on Justice Naqvi’s petitions against the SJC proceedings and its two show-cause notices issued to him was conducted by a three-member special bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan.
The other two members of the bench were Justices Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Mussarat Hilali.
The same bench will also hear Lahore-based lawyer Mian Dawood’s plea challenging Justice Ijazul Ahsan’s participation in the SJC’s proceedings against Justice Naqvi.
As the SC’s proceedings commenced, Justice Naqvi's lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan came to the rostrum and started presenting his arguments. He objected that the bench had not been constituted by the three-judge committee formed under the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023. He contended that it could not be called a bench as the procedure for its formation had not been followed.
The lawyer also presented the documents from the SC’s website that showed that the bench was not formed by the committee.
Justice Aminuddin noted that constitutional interpretation was required in this case.
Justice Mandokhail noted that they had been informed that the bench was formed by the three-member committee.
Justice Hilali inquired if there was any objection to any member of the bench. The lawyer replied that he had no objection to any member.
Justice Aminuddin instructed the lawyer to clearly file whatever objection he had on the bench.
The lawyer replied that he would file the objection in an application.
The court noted in its order that an objection had been raised by the petitioner's lawyer on the formation of the bench that it had not been constituted by the three-member committee.
It added that the committee should consider this objection.
Justice Mandokhail asked the lawyer how a bench, over which he had raised his objection, could grant a stay order on the proceedings of the council.
Justice Naqvi's lawyer said the case should be scheduled for hearing before the council’s proceedings.
To this, Justice Aminuddin replied that it was fine and the hearing could be scheduled for January 8.
It is pertinent to mention that the SJC has adjourned the hearing of the complaints of misconduct against Justice Naqvi till January 11.
Later, the SC adjourned the hearing on Justice Naqvi’s pleas till January 8.
Justice Naqvi had approached the SC to challenge the two show-cause notices issued by the SJC over allegations of financial misconduct.
The judge contended that the complaints filed against him with the SJC were “politically motivated”.
On December 12, Justice Naqvi penned an open letter to all apex court judges, accusing Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, who also chairs the SJC, of “bias”.
The judge wrote that Justice Isa and Justice Sardar Tariq Masood -- the latter also an SJC member -- on May 3, 2023 asked former CJP Umar Ata Bandial to immediately initiate proceedings against him after the emergence of some leaked telephonic conversations.
A month after coming into office, CJP Isa had summoned an SJC meeting which on October 27 decided to hear the complaints that accused Justice Naqvi of manipulation of benches and financial corruption.
The SJC with a majority vote of 3 to 2 issued a show-cause notice to the judge.
On November 10, Justice Naqvi submitted his preliminary response to the show-cause notice.
In his response, he accused three SJC members—Justice Isa, Justice Masood, and Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan —of bias and requested their recusal.
Despite Justice Naqvi's objections, the SJC set a hearing for November 20 to review the complaints against him.
After its three-day long proceedings, the SJC on November 22, decided by a majority vote of four to one to issue another detailed show cause notice to Justice Naqvi.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ