ISLAMABAD: Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui — a sitting judge of the Islamabad High Court who is facing a reference over misconduct — challenged in the Supreme Court on Friday the Supreme Judicial Council’s (SJC) July 30 decision rejecting his requests for summoning details of expenditures incurred on maintenance of official residences of all superior court judges.

Justice Siddiqui is facing the reference for allegedly refurbishing his official residence beyond entitlement on a complaint by a retired employee of the Capital Development Authority.

In a first in the country’s judicial history, the SJC had commenced open court hearing of the reference after accepting Justice Siddiqui’s petition, but dismissed his two applications seeking the record of expenses on maintenance of official accommodations of all superior court judges. He had argued that the information was necessary in his defence with regard to the allegations made in the complaint.

The information included total expenditures incurred on the maintenance of each official accommodation in the occupation of judges of the Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court and all high courts over the past seven years, as well as the expenses incurred on the houses owned by the judges of the superior judiciary but declared as official accommodations, etc.

In his petition, Justice Siddiqui argued that the SJC’s decision was void, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect since it was taken in haste, without application of mind, based on procedural impropriety and against the principles of natural justice.

Referring to the council’s decision to hold proceedings of the reference in the open court, the judge argued that the term “open justice” was of wide amplitude and included the right to a complete defence. But the July 30 order had denied this basic right, he said.

Justice Siddiqui emphasised that the documents being sought were necessary and relevant for the preparation of defence to disprove certain facts. The absence of such record, which in any manner an official record, would deny the petitioner the right to fair trial and due process, he said, adding that the Supreme Court could summon the same record and determine its relevance.

The basic allegations against the applicant were the expenditures incurred on the renovation of an official residence, the petition recalled, adding that for the determination of the misconduct within the meaning of the Code of Conduct provided under Article 209 of the Constitution, binding on all judges, it would only be fair that the petitioner was treated equally along with other judges of the Supreme Court and high courts.

Published in Dawn, August 18th, 2018