Sacking of a judge

The removal by the President of senior puisne judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, on the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), comes as no surprise. The ousted judge, better known for making provocative remarks and delivering controversial judgements in several high profile cases rather than upholding the majesty of law, lost his job for his July 21 speech before the Rawalpindi Bar Association in which he cast grave aspersions on the independence of judiciary, claiming that the premier intelligence agency, ISI, was "manipulating judicial proceedings as its officials manage to constitute benches at their will and get cases marked to selected judges." And that "the ISI approached the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court and told him that they don't want release of Nawaz Sharif and his daughter before elections." Small wonder then that the SJC found his unsubstantiated, incendiary claims as unbecoming of a judge of a high court, and held him guilty of misconduct and, hence, liable to be removed from his office under Article 209(6) of the Constitution.
There are two conjectures as to the motive behind his statement. One is that closely related to a trusted aide of the disqualified prime minister, he wanted to lend credibility to the latter's anti-judiciary and anti-Army narrative; and the other that by taking a partisan stance he sought to draw political support to evade a reference he faced in the SJC. Nonetheless, in some other cases, too, Siddiqui had been making objectionable remarks and giving orders that went beyond the judicial purview, only to be overturned by the apex court. There is his verdict in the case of controversial changes in the legislators' oath. Instead of restricting himself to the case, he ruled that citizens applying for jobs in the judiciary, civil services, and the armed force must declare their "true faith." According to him, since Article 5 of the Constitution demands that all citizens remain "faithful" to the state, it follows that all citizens whether Muslim or non-Muslim must declare their "true faith" failing which they could be guilty of "betraying the state and exploiting its Constitution", thereby suggesting that members of minorities could betray the state. This is indeed an outrage against the Constitution that guarantees "fundamental rights, including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality." Besides, discrimination against minorities in any shape or form or way is a kind of persecution, unacceptable in any civilized society.
Siddiqui also frequently overstepped the line between judicial and legislative/administrative affairs, like when last May he ordered that Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority to stop transmission of programmes like "Nelaam Ghar" and those "appearing like a circus show" for the duration of the holy month or Ramazan, and also ensure airing of the call to prayers five times a day. He gave that order over and above the law. He had no qualms either about making a show of his sense of piety, openly crying while hearing a case about a religious issue. In acting the way he did, the judge repeatedly rode roughshod on an established principle of law that holds judges should speak through their verdicts not public speeches. They are also expected to exhibit respect for the other institutions' turf; levelling allegations, like in the present instance, undermines democracy and the rule of law.