RECORDER REPORT

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court Thursday issued a notice to attorney general for Pakistan over the plea of Islamabad High Court (IHC) sitting Judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, seeking open court proceedings of allegations of misconduct levelled against him, instead of in-camera hearing, before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

Resuming the hearing of the plea, a two-member bench of Justice Azmat Saeed Sheikh and Justice Qazi Faez Isa also referred the matter to Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar to consider formation of a larger bench for early hearing of Justice Siddiqui’s appeal.

Appearing before the bench, Advocate Makhdoom Ali Khan, the counsel for Justice Siddiqui, requested the bench to suspend proceedings against his client in the SJC but the court issued notices to all respondents including the AGP in the matter.

Khan argued that rules of the SJC are in conflict with the Constitution of Pakistan, saying the council has the only authority to form code of conduct, adding there is a constitutional bar over the council to make any law.

The counsel said that in the past a judge resigned while the SJC held an inquiry against him on the allegations for scolding a deputy superintendent of police but media reported that the judge resigned for committing corruption.

It is pertinent to mention here that on May 18, the SJC had dismissed Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s plea seeking open trial of the allegations levelled against him. The next hearing of the matter before the SJC is fixed for November 07.

Upon dismissal of his request by the SJC, Justice Siddiqui filed a constitutional petition in the apex court, challenging the dismissal on the grounds that declaration of the Council Procedure of Inquiry, 2005 is unconstitutional which has no legal effect.

The counsel for Justice Siddiqui pleaded before the apex court to suspend the SJC proceedings against his client till final decision of the petition in hand with an argument that Justice Siddiqui has a fundamental right to insist that an inquiry into his conduct be heard publicly.

The petitioner said that the paragraph 13 (1) of the SJC Procedure of Inquiry, 2005, which permits the in-camera proceedings of the council, violates Article 10-A of the Constitution, saying the Article 10-A provides every citizen with the right to a fair trial with due process of law.

Justice Siddiqui submitted that he has nothing to hide as his dignity is not compromised if open proceedings are held, adding that due process of law requires a person to be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself which is not possible in an in-camera trial.