ISLAMABAD: The recent show-cause notice to Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) regarding his remarks about senior army officers triggered a debate among senior lawyers of the federal capital, in the bar room as well as on social media.

During a hearing of petitions filed against the Faizabad sit-in which had paralysed the twin cities for several days in November last year, Justice Siddiqui had criticised senior army officers for “facilitating” the agreement with the clerics, who not only used abusive language against judges of the superior courts and also defied court orders for dispersing peacefully.

The show-cause notice SJC issued to Justice Siddiqui for his remarks says: “Such comments had prima facie travelled beyond the scope of the lis under consideration and had seemingly tendency to undermine the respect otherwise due to such constitutional institution.”

Say a sitting judge has never before faced such a complaint for passing remarks against an institution

The SJC is an apex constitutional body constituted under Article 209 of the Constitution and hold inquiries into allegations against superior court judges and other constitutional post holders.

The council issued the notice to the judge on the complaint of MNA Jamshed Ahmed Dasti.

Senior lawyers say a sitting judge has never before faced such a complaint for passing remarks against an institution. Some lawyers also pointed out that the army is not a constitutional body and works under the executive as per Article 243 of the Constitution.

On his Twitter account, advocate Adnan Randhawa has said: “If an IHC Judge can face proceeding over unwarranted remarks then it would set a new precedence on the basis of which any person would file complaint against judges of superior judiciary.”

He added that former chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry first started using such remarks and that even today, several judges pass similar remarks in almost every hearing against the bureaucracy, politicians and others.

However, some lawyers are defending the reference.

IHC Bar Association President Mohammad Arif Chaudhry said such remarks should not be passed during hearings on sensitive issues. He said that the army intervened when the civil administration failed to disperse the protesters.

Pakistan Bar Council member Mohammad Shoaib Shaheen said the Constitution bars criticism on institutions such as the army and judiciary.

The notice issued to Justice Siddiqui says that comments and observations made by the judge during a hearing regarding the sit-in questioned the manner in which an administrative issue was resolved and also questioned the participation of some officials in the resolution of the issue, which apparently falls outside the judicial domain.

This act of the judge, the notice says, amounts to misconduct as envisaged in the provisions of Article II of the code of conduct prescribed by the SJC for judges.

SJC will take up the matter on March 7.

Published in Dawn, February 28th, 2018