ISLAMABAD:
Former Islamabad High Court judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui has said that only the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) could conduct inquiry into the allegations regarding manipulation of judicial proceedings by agencies in the Panama case.
“If it is decided that [an] enquiry is required to be held, then the same can only be done by [the] SJC and no other body or authority because enquiry into the conduct of a judge can only be done by SJC and none other,” says written arguments submitted by Siddiqui through his counsel Hamid Khan on the larger bench queries raised in January 23 order.
It is submitted that no judge can be removed merely on allegations unless a thorough enquiry based on the principles of fair trial and due process (under Article 10A of the Constitution) is held against him.
“The conclusion in the report of SJC regarding misconduct of a judge has to be based on proof (after affording due opportunity of leading evidence) and not merely on allegations without substantiating the same.
Regarding the larger bench’s question as to whether Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, who filed the petition on Oct 26, 2018 and having attained the age of retirement on reaching 62 years of age on June 30, 2021 can still proceed with the petition and whether at this stage it could be referred/remanded to the Supreme Judicial Council, it is said that the petitioner can proceed with the petition even after attaining the age of retirement because the petition was filed while he was still in office and he had more than two and half years before retirement.
Read also: Ex-spymaster rejects IHC judge’s claims
Secondly, since he has been removed on the ground of misconduct, therefore he has every right to vindicate himself, clear his name in public and receive his dues of salary before retirement and pension after such retirement.
The written statement further states that there is overwhelming facts and circumstances in the case that certain powers were annoyed and antagonistic towards the petitioner ( Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’) and they were out to get him whatever it may take.
“He was hounded, witch hunted, victimized and involved in false & sham References because he was too independent for their taste. His victimization was a clear attempt on the part of certain elements in the executive to subdue independent judges and subject them to inducement or threat to obtain results of their desire. Even in the case of Justice Qazi Faez Isa, such sensitivity particularly in refe nce to Faizabad Dharna has come out clearly.”
It is also submitted that in the present case, no inquiry has ever been held and the report submitted by SJC is not based on any inquiry. “The President cannot remove a judge except on the basis of a report of SJC made on the basis of a thorough inquiry held by it. Hence, the removal of the Petitioner is clearly unconstitutional, illegal and void being violative of the provisions of Article 209 of the Constitution,” it adds.
Read: Bajwa, Faiz made party to IHC judge case
Khawaja Haris counsel for ex-DG ISI General Faiz Hameed and Brig Irfan Ramey in his statement opposed the referring of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s matter to SJC for inquiry.
“As a matter of fact, if the framers of the Constitution intended that the proceedings under Article 209 of the Constitution should continue even against a retired Judge, they would also have stipulated the purpose for doing so, and also conferred on the SJC powers to achieve any such (assumed) purpose. As it is, Article 209 provides for a Supreme Judicial Council as a Domestic Forum only limited to exercise powers for the purpose specified therein. And neither the powers so conferred on the, Council nor the purpose for which the said powers are to be exercised even remotely contemplate initiation or continuation of proceedings. against a judge post his/her retirement.”
Lastly, it is submitted that the constitution does not provide for initiation or continuance of proceedings under Article 209 ibid, notwithstanding that a Judge has resigned from his office, or has attained the age of superannuation prior to initiation or conclusion of such proceedings.
“Thus reading into the Constitution any provision which confers upon the Supreme Judicial Council any power, duty or obligation to initiate or continue against a retired Judge proceedings under Article 209 of the Constitution would not only be violative of Article 195 as well of Article 209 of the Constitution, it would also be tantamount to re-writing of the Constitution by this hon’ble Court.”
