Lawyers representing Supreme Court judge Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi withdrew their objections on Monday to the bench hearing Justice Naqvi’s petition against misconduct proceedings initiated by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
The SJC, on October 27 last year, issued a show cause notice to Justice Naqvi amid various complaints alleging bench manipulation and financial misconduct by the SC judge.
Subsequently, on November 22, a second show cause notice was served by the SJC, demanding a detailed response from the judge regarding the allegations raised by multiple petitioners.
In response, Justice Naqvi challenged the SJC proceedings and its notices in the apex court, which then formed a three-member bench to address the matter. The bench included Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Justice Mussarat Hilali.
Initially, Justice Naqvi objected to the formation of this bench, which according to a note issued by one of the SJC members, Justice Ijazul Ahsan, was not formed in consultation with a three-member committee formed in light of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.
However, on Monday, Naqvi’s lawyers—Makhdoom Ali Khan and Latif Khosa—expressed complete confidence in the bench and retracted their objections.
During the hearing, Justice Mandokhail remarked on the prevalence of derogatory remarks about judges on social media and referenced an allegedly attributed statement from a judge's daughter, highlighted as breaking news.
"Any Tom, Dick, and Harry lodges complaints against judges. People ridicule the judiciary, and nobody is holding them accountable," he said. "Judges cannot even respond to these allegations. They do not have a media cell or an office to address such accusations."
The court observed that Justice Naqvi had not named the individuals who filed complaints against him with the SJC as respondents in the case, a unique occurrence that warrants examination.
Mukhdoom Ali Khan argued that once a complainant submits a grievance to the SJC, their role terminates. He contended that the council's actions, termed administrative, can be halted by a Supreme Court bench, citing precedents.
He further alleged that the SJC failed to meet legal requirements before issuing show cause notices to Naqvi, suggesting they were based on assumptions rather than facts. Justice Mandokhail asked as to who will determine whether the show cause notices were based on facts or assumptions.
The bench also reserved its order on a petition by complainant Mian Dawood, seeking the removal of Justice Ijazul Ahsan from the SJC bench handling complaints against Justice Naqvi.
Dawood, present in the courtroom, stated that when he requested Justice Ahsan's recusal, the SJC member refused to step down from hearing the complaints against Naqvi.
Justice Mandokhail noted the principle that a judge facing objections should decide on their own recusal in judicial decisions. The court adjourned until today (Tuesday).
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