The Supreme Court Friday decided to hear on October 18 the plea of sitting judge of Islamabad High Court Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, seeking open trial before Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) over alleged charges of misconduct against him.
On October 05, Justice Siddiqui who is facing the SJC proceedings for alleged misconduct filed a constitutional petition before the Supreme Court under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution in the matter, making the Council and the Federation as respondents.
On May 18, the SJC dismissed his plea seeking an open trial as the Council was scheduled to resume hearing of the matter on October 10 but Justice Siddiqui filed the constitutional petition with a plea to declare order of the SJC without lawful authority and urged the court to suspend the Council against him till a decision is made on his petition.
Justice Siddiqui submitted that the SJC's May 18 order, by upholding paragraph 13 (1) of the SJC Procedure of Inquiry 2005, which permits the proceedings of the Council in camera, violates Article 10-A of the Constitution, saying that Article 10-A provides every citizen with the right to a fair trial and due process of law.
"It is not in the interest of the judiciary if the proceedings are held in camera. It will damage the image of the institution. The guardians of justice cannot deny their brethren the protection of a public hearing and due process," Justice Siddiqui said.
Accepting the plea of Justice Siddiqui on Friday, Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar formed a three-member bench led by Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh, comprising Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah to hear the matter. Senior advocates Makhdoom Ali Khan and Hamid Khan will represent Justice Siddiqui before the bench on October 18.
Meanwhile, the same bench will hear the petition of Malik Shakeel Awan of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz seeking disqualification of Awami Muslim League chief Sheikh Rasheed from Parliament. Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had earlier turned down Awan's plea against which he invoked the apex court jurisdiction.
Comments
Comments are closed.