Recorder report

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Saturday accepted the application of Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, a judge of Islamabad High Court (IHC), for holding an open court trial of a corruption reference against him.

Attorney General for Pakistan was asked to present the list of witnesses on July 30.

It will be the first time that the SJC proceedings would be held in open court. Former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry case was heard in the courtroom but that was against the SJC order.

A five-member larger bench of the apex court on May 10, 2018 had dismissed Justice Shaukat Siddiqui’s constitutional petition against the SJC 18-05-2018 order. However, the bench recommended to the SJC that it can revisit and decide the question regarding conduct of proceedings through an open justice afresh.

Justice Siddiqui is facing a reference on misconduct moved on the complaint filed by a retired employee of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) for alleged refurbishment of official residence beyond entitlement.

The SJC on 22nd February, 2018 had issued a show cause notice to Justice Siddiqui on another reference against him for making unnecessary and unwarranted comments about some “important constitutional institution.”

Justice Siddiqui in his petition had challenged the vires of the provisions of the Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Enquiry 2005. He claimed that the SJC order and paragraph 13 of SJC Procedure of Enquiry 2005 offend his fundamental rights. The five-member bench in its judgment had noted that the necessity of proceedings in camera before the SJC based on the law as laid down by this court must prevail over the right of an unconcerned citizen to such information as Article 19A of the Constitution pertains to right to information not right to entertainment through the malicious satisfaction of idle curiosity.

The judgment stated that the SJC is a unique forum created by the Constitution. It is not a Court but more akin to a Domestic Disciplinary Tribunal whose proceedings are administrative in nature and recommendatory in affect. But its findings have an element of conclusiveness.

The SJC Procedure of Enquiry, 2005 reflects the implied authority of the SJC to do all acts and employ all means necessary to exercise the jurisdiction conferred and to fulfill its mandate in accordance with the Constitution, hence, are legally valid and effective in law. Paragraph 7 of the SJC Procedure of Enquiry, 2005 is valid and intra vires to the Constitution.

It also said paragraph 13 also does not offend against the Constitution or any provision thereof. The obvious purpose of paragraph 13 is the protection of the rights and reputation of the person whose conduct and capacity are being inquired into and the protection of the institution of the judiciary, including the members of the SJC, hence, must be interpreted in such context. Therefore, the process of determination whether any prima facie case has been made for proceedings under Article 209 of the Constitution in any event should be held in camera and the subsequent proceedings should also be held in camera unless the person being inquired into waives such right.

However, in such circumstances, since in camera proceedings are not alien to our jurisprudence and can always be resorted to by the SJC even in the absence of the consent of the parties for well defined reasons which have been enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, including (but not limited to) in the eventuality of an apprehension that the person whose conduct and capacity is being inquired into or his counsel may resort to baseless, scandalous and scurrilous allegations against the SJC or any of its in order to publicize the same and thereby frustrate the very proceedings of the SJC.