ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday overruled its registrar office’s decision not to entertain three different appeals filed by the Karachi Bar Association, Islamabad High Court Bar Association and Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench Bar Association against the Oct 11, 2018 notification removing Islamabad High Court judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui.

Justice Umar Ata Bandial heard the appeals in his chambers against the registrar office’s returning of the appeals and ordered fixing of the case before a bench of the Supreme Court that will take up a similar petition by the former judge.

Shaukat Siddiqui was removed from the high judicial office on the recommendation of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) under Article 209 of the Constitution for displaying a conduct unbecoming of a judge by delivering a speech on July 21, 2018, at the Rawalpindi District Bar Association, thus found guilty of misconduct.

Registrar’s decision not to entertain pleas of three bar associations rejected

In the speech, the former judge had claimed involvement of certain officers of the executive organ of the state, specifically the ISI, in the affairs of the judiciary to allegedly manipulate the formation of benches of superior courts of the country.

In April, the Karachi Bar Association (KBA), through former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Rasheed A. Razvi, had requested the Supreme Court to order a transparent probe into the veracity of allegations levelled by the former high court judge in his speech, as well as in his replies submitted to the SJC.

The registrar office, however, returned the petition on the grounds that scandalous language had been used in the petition.

The KBA had pleaded in the petition that the allegations made by the then sitting high court judge (Shaukat Siddiqui) about the manipulation of judicial proceedings by certain elements in intelligence agencies deserved a proper inquiry, considering the fact that the allegations had been made in writing by specifically naming high-ranking military officers of whom two were said to have personally visited the high court judge to allegedly seek cooperation in judicial matters.

The petition had also alleged that the SJC brushed aside the real issue under the carpet by stating that it was not relevant whether the allegations were correct or not and whether they should have been made in public.

Indeed, the petition had said, the public interest in protecting and encouraging whistleblowers far outweighs the public interest in preserving traditional judicial values of reserve and reticence. Moreover, the factual accuracy of the former judge’s allegations needed to be ascertained by the SJC prior to assessing the propriety of making such allegations publicly and determining the appropriate and proportionate penalty for the same, it added.

Published in Dawn, September 17th, 2019