In a major development, President Asif Ali Zardari has approved the dismissal of Supreme Court (SC) former Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi by withdrawing notification of accepting his resignation, who was found guilty of misconduct by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

Naqvi had resigned from his position as his case was under proceedings in view of the SJC.

The then President Dr Arif Alvi on January 11, 2024, had accepted the resignation on the advice of the then caretaker prime minister Anwaar-ul-Haq Kakar under “Article 179 of the Constitution”.

The SJC on March 7, 2024, found Naqvi guilty of misconduct and opined “(he) should have been removed from the office of judge (of Supreme Court).”

According to the notification, “the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is pleased to remove Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi (formerly, Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan) from his office, for being guilty of misconduct, effective from 10th January 2024.

This Division’s earlier Notification of even number dated 11.01.2024 may be treated as withdrawn.”

The foregoing about this Supreme Court judge shows, among other things, two divergent approaches to his case under two different political dispensations.

The question is why the then President and the then prime minister had accepted his resignation when the case was being examined and adjudicated by the Supreme Judicial Council? Were the then President and prime minister not aware of the constitutional import of the institution of SJC?

Moreover, in his preliminary reply to a show-cause notice issued to him by the SJC on October 28, 2023, Justice Naqvi had raised objections over the participation of the three members of the body but wrote nothing about the misconduct complaints against him.

Be that as it may, regardless of the merits of the SJC order, this case will surely not add to the reputation or stature of some of our apex institutions owing to a variety of reasons.

Concluding, I must reproduce an excerpt from one of India’s Supreme Court’s judgment that has clearly and unambiguously defined what actually constitutes Judicial Misconduct: “Showing undue favour to a party under the guise of passing judicial orders is the worst kind of judicial dishonesty and misconduct. The extraneous consideration for showing favour need not always be a monetary consideration.

It is often said that “the public servants are like fish in the water, none can say when and how a fish drank the water”.

A judge must decide the case on the basis of the facts on record and the law applicable to the case. If he decides a case for extraneous reasons, then he is not performing his duties in accordance with law. As often quoted, a judge, like Caesar’s wife, must be above suspicion.”

Zafar Ahmad Ansari (Karachi)

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024