• Apex court removes SHC’s adverse remarks against judge in high-profile murder case
• Justice Mazhar says critical remarks can permanently tarnish reputations
• In case of doubt over judge’s conduct, matter should be discreetly sent to relevant chief justice
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday cautioned superior judges over issuing critical orders against their peers as these observations have an “interminable impact” on the reputation of adjudicators.
“It always haunts the judicial officer and causes severe hardship and disparagement to his name and reputation in judicial service,” remarked Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar in an order released on Thursday.
The verdict was issued in a revision application moved by Syed Zakir Hussain, a presiding officer of an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Karachi.
Mr Hussain, who was also the administrative judge of ATC in Karachi, came to the spotlight after refusing the remand of Armaghan Qureshi, the prime suspect in the high-profile Mustafa Amir murder case.
The judge’s action drew flak from the Sindh High Court (SHC), which ordered the provincial government to remove Mr Hussain from his role as the administrative judge of ATC.
Subsequently, the Sindh government, through a notification on Feb 26, withdrew Mr Hussain’s administrative powers as ATC judge.
The judge moved the Supreme Court against the SHC order and sought to expunge adverse observations over his alleged “judicial misconduct” and “procedural improprieties”.
In its order, the three-judge SC bench, headed by Justice Mazhar, removed the adverse remarks against Mr Hussain, but kept the Feb 26 notification intact, stripping the judge of his administrative powers.
In the 12-page judgement, Justice Mazhar observed that “strictures” against judges create a “serious impairment and a sense of guilt in the eyes of the subordinates of the judge”.
Besides, it also damages the public’s confidence in the judicial system.
Another important aspect that cannot be ignored is that a judge against whom disparaging remarks or strictures were passed cannot defend their judgment or order in front of superior courts.
Therefore, high courts “should exercise greater caution and judicial restraint”, Justice Mazhar observed.
He added high courts, on a daily basis, review judgements and orders of lower courts and if those judements and orders are found to be deficient or flawed, they should be “modified, remanded or set aside”.
He added that no ulterior motive should be attributed even to a “serious error” committed by a judge without confronting them or seeking their comments.
The high court should be mindful that scornful and demeaning remarks or observations against a judge of the subordinate judiciary, even if expunged, “would not totally restitute the defacement of esteem and dignity”.
The criticism of a judgement or order must be “judicial” in nature and it should only point out errors or flaws in the said judgement.
Justice Mazhar observed that if the court has any doubt regarding the judge’s conduct, the matter should be confidentially referred to the high court’s chief justices, who can deal with the judge as per their “own fine sense of judgement”.
He added the principles of natural justice, due process, fair play and right to fair trial are also afforded to the judges of subordinate judiciary.
“They, too, being dispensers of justice, should be granted the right to a fair trial, rather than being condemned unheard.”
Published in Dawn, July 18th, 2025
