ACCOUNTABILITY is considered a basic value in public and private sectors to ensure that power must be responsive and responsible to the community in a way that it ensures that institutional and individual functions are carried out in an efficient manner. Therefore, a point is made that accountability is required nowadays in all sectors, and judiciary should not be an exception to this rule.

In a democratic system, accountability defines the relationship between state institutions and the people. Democracy is at its strongest when accountability, judicial independence, and checks and balances among state institutions are ensured. In the words of Justice McGarvie, ‘Judges like all other officials in the community must be accountable to the community’.

Recently, the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) passed a detailed 33-page opinion regarding misconduct proceedings against a judge of the Supreme Court who was still working as a judge when a number of complaints against him were pending before the SJC. What is the legality and legitimacy of the decisions that he rendered from February 2023 to January 2024? This is the most important question.

The basic principle of natural justice and the personal conduct of the judge dictate that when a complaint is taken up by the SJC and the council is satisfied enough to proceed further, the judge concerned must cease working until the complaint is decided. However, judges continue to work as usual to create the impression of ‘life as usual’.

However, what about the rights of those people or parties whose rights may be violated when a complaint against them is pending? How can parties or litigants have faith in a judge who, in his/her personal or judicial capacity, is facing allegations of official misconduct?

Abdul Samee Sohoo
Larkana

Published in Dawn, April 16th, 2024