The Supreme Court (SC) reserved its verdict on Tuesday on former IHC judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s petition challenging his removal from office in 2018, ordering all respondents of the case to submit their replies within three weeks.
A five-member bench led by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa heard the case. The bench included Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, and Justice Irfan Saadat. The proceedings were broadcast live on the SC’s website.
On October 11, 2018, President Arif Alvi removed Justice Siddiqui as judge of the IHC on the Supreme Judicial Council’s (SCJ) recommendation. The president took the decision under Article 209(5) on the recommendation of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) under Article 209(6) read with Article 48(1) of the Constitution, a notification issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice stated. The council unanimously opined that while delivering a speech before the District Bar Association in Rawalpindi on July 21, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, an IHC judge, displayed conduct unbecoming of a high court judge.
In his speech, Siddiqui made serious allegations against the country’s premier intelligence agency in a no-holds-barred speech at the Rawalpindi Bar Association. He accused the Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, of manipulating the judicial proceedings. He was accused of not sharing any evidence to substantiate his allegations. Justice Siddiqui alleged that the agency had approached the IHC chief justice seeking assurance that deposed prime minister Nawaz Sharif, his daughter Maryam Nawaz, and son-in-law Captain (retd) Safdar would remain behind bars until July 25, 2018 – the election day.
During the hearing on Tuesday, CJP Isa observed that all respondents have agreed to the fact that a proper inquiry was not conducted in the case. He remarked that the SJC was a powerful body and had the authority to summon anyone. Siddiqui’s lawyer, Advocate Hamid Khan, argued that the SC should declare the SJC’s sacking of the former as unconstitutional.
The CJP remarked that we cannot decide a case on coin toss. “What if the allegations are not true? How can we decide the case when we don’t know if the allegations are true or false? But we want to set an example through these cases. The allegations were made publicly. If the allegations are found to be false after an inquiry, will the decision to remove the judge stand? We asked those who were accused to be made parties. Who will get to the bottom of these allegations? We are now looking to find a solution to the problem. The other party can say that the allegations were never investigated,” Justice Isa observed.
At this Siddiqui’s counsel suggested that the solution was to nullify the action of the council, and the removal of the judge by the president. “The SC should form a commission to investigate Siddiqui’s allegations,” he said. “How should we form a commission? Should we refer the matter to the council again? No one is telling the truth,” the CJP retorted. Ex-ISI chief Faiz Hameed’s counsel Khawaja Haris said that the court should only focus on the judge’s public speech. The CJP remarked that the case concerned the independence of the judiciary and the working of the judicial council. “The council’s working should be per the law.
