Naqvi's bid to halt SJC rejected

The Supreme Court has once again dismissed Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Naqvi's plea to halt the ongoing misconduct proceedings at the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

The court has also asked the apex court judge to name the people who accused him of manipulating benches and financial wrongdoings as respondents in the case.

On Tuesday, a three-member bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Musarrat Hilali resumed hearing Justice Naqvi's petition.

During the proceedings, Justice Mandokhail noted that Naqvi, in his constitutional petition, contended that the complaints lodged against him at the SJC are based on mala fide intentions.

"How can we determine whether the petitions are filed with a mala fide intention or not without hearing the complainants?” he asked.

At the last hearing of the case, on Monday, the court had expressed wonder that Justice Naqvi had not arrayed the complainants as respondents.

Naqvi's lawyer Makhdoom Ali Khan referred to Justice Qazi Faez Isa case, in which, according to him, the complainants were not named as respondents.

Justice Aminuddin Khan, however, took exception to this claim, stating that Justice Isa had named the complainants including the Assets Recovery Unit as respondents.

Makhdoom Ali Khan said that when the SJC decided to issue the first show cause to Naqvi on October 27, it had dismissed 21 other complaints filed against other judges without hearing those petitioners.

"If the complainants in Justice Naqvi's case are named as respondents then all the people whose complaints were rejected without giving them a hearing will file petitions against the move under Article 184 (3)," Khan argued.

Justice Aminuddin Khan observed that the Supreme Court is now adjudicating the matter.

"The court believes that the complainants should be first issued notices. Otherwise, the proceedings cannot move forward," he said.

Read Naqvi withdraws objections to SC bench

The lawyer argued that if the court opened its doors to the complainants in this case then a lot of people will rush to the top court with complaints against judges.

Justice Aminuddin Khan emphasized that it is the judges, not the complainants, who have approached this court. “The court might have proceeded further had the complainants not been mentioned in your petition."

Justice Mandokhail said the court's position is that it cannot make a decision without hearing the complainants, adding that justice should not only be done but also seen to be done.

“We do not want to give everyone a free pass to point the finger at judges. Either the complaint in the council should be so substantial and comprehensive that no judge can escape it, or the council should take strict action against baseless complaints.

“There should be no middle ground. There is a lot of money in lawyering; people become judges due to the respect associated with the position,” he said.

The court later asked Justice Naqvi to file an amended petition by naming the complainants as respondents. When the lawyer for Naqvi requested the bench to stay the proceedings of the SJC, Justice Aminuddin replied that they had not heard the merits of the case so far.

“We will decide on issuing or not issuing a stay order on the SJC proceedings after hearing the case on merit,” he said. Interestingly, the SJC is going to resume its misconduct proceedings against Justice Naqvi tomorrow, on January 11.