ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s office on Wednesday returned the Karachi Bar Association’s (KBA) plea — which requested the court to set aside the Supreme Judicial Council’s (SJC) opinion that had led to removal of an outspoken judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) — after declaring it could not be entertained because inappropriate language had been used while drafting it.

The SJC’s decision of Oct 11, 2018 had led to issuance on the same day of a notification for removal of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui from the position of IHC judge.

“Scandalous and inappropriate language has been used in the petition,” said the letter issued by the registrar’s office on Wednesday.

Language used in plea termed inappropriate

Moved by senior counsel Rasheed A. Razvi on behalf of the KBA, the petition had requested the Supreme Court to order a transparent investigation into veracity of the allegations levelled by the former judge in his speech of July 21, 2018 and in the replies he submitted to the SJC.

Mr Siddiqui was removed from the high judicial office on the recommendation of the SJC under Article 209 of the Constitution for conduct unbecoming of a judge for delivering a controversial speech on July 21, 2018 at the District Bar Association, Rawalpindi. He was therefore deemed guilty of committing misconduct.

Take a look: Justice league: Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui

In his speech the former judge had spoken about the involvement of certain officers from the executive organ of the state, specifically from the Inter-Services Intelligence, in manipulating the formation of IHC’s benches.

In its letter, the registrar’s office reminded the petitioner that a similar plea, filed by Mr Siddiqui himself, was already pending with the apex court.

On March 25, a five-judge Supreme Court bench had brushed aside an earlier objection by the registrar’s office and ordered fixing of the former judge’s petition for a hearing.

In its objection, the registrar’s office said on Wednesday the petitioner had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the apex court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution in a case involving an individual’s grievances, which was not permissible.

Moreover, a certificate provided with the KBA’s petition did not fulfil certain requirements as enunciated under the Supreme Court’s Rules of 1980.

In its petition, the KBA had pleaded that the allegations levelled by the-then IHC judge about the manipulation of judicial proceedings by certain elements in the intelligence agencies deserved a proper inquiry.

Such an inquiry should entail a full-fledged trial where the allegations were made in writing, specifically naming high-ranking military officers, of whom two were said to have personally visited the judge to allegedly seek cooperation in judicial matters, the petition had argued.

The petition had alleged that SJC had brushed the real issue under the carpet by stating that it was irrelevant whether or not the allegations were true and if the allegations should have been made publicly.

The public interest in protecting and encouraging whistleblowers far outweighed the public interest in preserving the traditional judicial values of reserve and reticence, petition had said.

Moreover, the SJC should determine the veracity of the former judge’s allegations before it assessed the propriety of making such allegations in public, the petition had argued.

Published in Dawn, April 4th, 2019