ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that outspoken former judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, will be deemed to have retired, and was entitled to receive all the benefits and privileges due to a retired high court justice.

“Alhamdulillah, this decision ended the agony of my soul and family,” was the prompt response of Justice Siddiqui while talking to Dawn. “I am indebted to all those who stood with me in trying times in particular Mr Hamid Khan,” he said.

The ruling, given by a five-judge SC bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, came after it set aside the Oct 2018 Supreme Judicial Council’s (SJC) opinion, on the basis of which the government had issued a notification for Justice Siddiqui’s removal for his July 2018 address to the District Bar Association Rawalpindi.

Both the SJC opinion and subsequent notification were challenged before the SC through a set of appeals filed by Justice Siddiqui, Islamabad Bar Association and the Karachi Bar Association.

IHC judge punished for making allegations without probe into their veracity, judgement authored by CJP notes

In its verdict, authored by CJP Isa, the bench explained that the delay that occurred in hearing and deciding the petitions meant that in the interregnum, Justice Siddiqui attained the age of 62 years, at which a judge of the high court retires. Therefore, Justice Siddiqui cannot be restored to the position of judge, it reasoned.

In his fiery speech, Justice Siddiqui had made remarks against the involvement of certain officers of the executive organ of the state, specifically ISI, in the affairs of the judiciary to allegedly manipulate the formation of IHC benches.

The SJC, in its recommendations, had held that by making speech at the District Bar Association Rawalpindi on July 21, 2018, Justice Siddiqui had not only violated some express provisions of the code of conduct but also displayed conduct unbecoming of a judge.

According to a 23-page judgement, which was reserved earlier on Jan 23, the Constitution guarantees that a judge’s tenure is secure because it makes for an independent judiciary while enabling a judge to be removed from office if he commits misconduct, after providing him a fair trial and due process, as mandated by Article 10-A of the Constitution.

However, Justice Siddiqui was not provided with an opportunity to establish the truth of the allegations he levelled, but was punished for levelling them, the SC said.

If judges are to be adjudged by unspecified, arbitrary and vague notions of what constitutes appropriate traits and patterns of behaviour of the judge and the SJC is to consider whether an alleged conduct of the judge is offensive to the qualities and behaviour traditionally expected of him, it would place the judge at the complete mercy of those who constitute the SJC, the apex court noted.

According to the verdict, judges must not be left vulnerable to the likes and dislikes of SJC members or to the vicissitudes of governments or to that of complainants.

The bar of jurisdiction contained in Article 211 would not be applicable in the present case since the action, as it was taken, against Justice Siddiqui constituted mala fide and SJC had acted coram non judice, the SC judgment said.

“If the judge can be removed without even inquiring into the allegations levelled by or against the judge the independence of the judiciary receives a severe setback. The removal of the judge is undoubtedly a matter of public importance and of public interest. And, an independent judiciary is the foundation on which all the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution rest,” the SC ruled.

If the SJC after conducting an inquiry had determined that Justice Siddiqui had levelled false allegations, he would have been guilty of misconduct, but without inquiring into the matter it could not be said that he had levelled false allegations, the SC judgement emphasised.

Published in Dawn, March 23rd, 2024