Judgement barring SJC: Govt’s intra-court appeal maintainable, rules apex court

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held the federal government’s intra-court appeal (ICA) against its judgment barring the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) from taking action against judges who have retired or resigned, maintainable.

A five-judge bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Mussarat Hilali, and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, on Monday, heard the ICA regarding setting aside of SJC’s order dated 08.3.2019 in reference against ex-CJP Mian Saqib Nisar.

The federation has prayed to the Court to lay down rules whether the judicial council can continue the action against judges even after they have tendered their resignations. The government demanded the Supreme Court to nullify its ruling in the Afiya Sheherbano case.

CJP summons SJC to deal with complaints against judges today

The Court directed Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Usman Mansoor Awan to frame questions regarding the matter and submit it today (Monday). The AGP proposed Makhdoom Ali Khan and Khalid Jawad Khan for appointment as amicus curiae in this case.

The attorney general argued that the apex court in 1989 had held the petition, maintainable, regarding the appointment of judges. The president after the approval by the cabinet sends the reference against the judge. The president does not have discretionary power to send a reference against any judge, he added. He informed that in Afiya Sheherbano’s case, neither the president nor the federal government was made respondent. Justice Amin questioned on what basis the Court declared this appeal maintainable, as it was filed after time.

The attorney general contended that the SC’s judgment in Afiya’s case held that the SJC could not take action against retired judges. The verdict also made it clear that the Supreme Court neither direct nor regulate the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). He apprised that the federal government agreed with the SC’s judgment to the extent that the Supreme Court cannot give direction to the SJC.

The AGP further argued that the pending inquiry before the Council against a judge cannot be quashed on the basis that he has resigned or retired. This is not judges pension case, but it is a matter of people’s trust, transparency, and accountability of the judiciary. If an inquiry is going on against a judge and if he resigns or retires then it would create doubts.

Justice Irfan Saadat said some judges would directly be affected with this appeal then should they not be issued notices, so that they could defend themselves? Is this case relating to two SC judges, who have recently resigned or is this of general nature?

Justice Mandokhel said this case is not against any judge, but related to laying down certain rules. If in the SJC, the misconduct of a judge is established, then should he not face the legal consequences?

Justice Irfan said when the case will proceed then the Court would not only see what had happened to the pending inquiries, but would also see whether a notice on the complaint against him was issued after or before his/her retirement?

Justice Jamal said they would have to be very careful as baseless allegations are levelled against the judges on social media. They are targeted for deciding cases, adding the judges should not make decisions on the whim, but in accordance with the constitution and law.

Justice Irfan said many honest judges are black-mailed when they decide as per constitution and law. However, no action is taken against those who black-mail the judges, he added. Justice Jamal said this is the most difficult case of his life as it pertains to deciding our own fate. The case was adjourned until May 19.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024