Islamabad: During the hearing of the Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui dismissal case, the Chief Justice remarked that all the parties are admitting that a complete inquiry has not been done, when action is taken against a judge, it is asked where his right to a transparent trial will go.
Hearing on Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s appeal is ongoing in the Supreme Court and a five-member larger bench headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faiz Isa is conducting the hearing.
Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s lawyer Advocate Hamid Khan argued that the Supreme Court should declare the action of the Judicial Council as unconstitutional.
The Chief Justice remarked that we cannot decide by tossing a coin, what if the allegations are not proved true, if it is not decided whether the allegations are true or false, without which we can go. But we want to set an example through these cases, the allegations were made public, if the allegations are found to be false after the inquiry, will the decision to remove the judge stand, we asked those who were accused to be made parties, true. Who will investigate Now, we are looking for a solution to the problem, on the other hand it may be that the allegations are not investigated at all.
Lawyer Shaukat Siddiqui said that the solution is to nullify the action of the council and the removal of the judge by the President, the Supreme Court should form a commission to investigate the allegations of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui.
The Chief Justice remarked that how should we form a commission, should we refer the matter again to the council, neither of them is telling the truth.
Lawyer Faiz Hameed Khawaja Haris said that only public speech can be viewed. The Chief Justice remarked that there is a question of the independence of the judiciary and the Judicial Council, the action of the Council should be in accordance with the law, the requirements were not fulfilled in the action of the Council, how can the Supreme Court give a decision in these circumstances, from the Attorney General. Ask too.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandukhel remarked whether a judge should have made such a speech. The Chief Justice remarked that we cannot ignore the facts, the judges go to the Bar Association and give speeches, the question is not about the speech but what is said in the speech is the real issue, Article 19 is not for judges, the code of judges. Conduct cannot allow speeches, in America judges participate in debates.
The Chief Justice remarked that can we conduct an inquiry ourselves, it is not a good thing to accuse a subsidiary body of the government, which was accused, I will call it not an institution but a subsidiary body of the government.
Lawyer Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui said that the entire inquiry should be annulled and the matter should be sent back to the Council, on which the Chief Justice questioned whether the Supreme Court can do this. Lawyer Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui said that the council did not conduct a complete inquiry.
Lawyer Faiz Hameed said that the matter cannot be sent to the council again because the term of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui as a judge has also ended. His speech alone is enough that he showed misconduct and the judiciary was ridiculed in the speech.
The Chief Justice remarked how the speech violated the Code of Conduct and pointed out the relevant clause, you should read the Code of Conduct of Judges. The speech can be seen not as publicity but also as an indication of what a judge should do if there is corruption in an institution.
Lawyer Faiz Hameed said that he should tell his Chief Justice, on which the Chief Justice remarked that there should be a standard for accepting the words of a Chief Justice and not accepting the words of a judge, the nation has endured enough now. Yes, our concern is about the reputation of the institution, the nation should know the truth, don’t you want the truth to come out, how do we proceed with the action. Lawyer Khawaja Haris said that the Supreme Court should automatically take notice.
The Chief Justice remarked that the Judicial Council removed the judge without taking any action, if a judge is not to my liking, can he be removed without an inquiry, even if there was a murder in front of someone’s eyes, legal procedures would have been followed. And it is necessary to fulfill the legal requirements. All the parties are admitting that there is no complete inquiry, when action is taken against a judge, it is asked where his right to a fair trial will go.
Attorney General argued that removal of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui without inquiry is against the stipulated legal requirements, it was said in Aafia Shehr Bannu case that when a judge is removed or resigned, action cannot be taken. An appeal has been filed against the decision of the ban on not taking action on resignation, the Supreme Court should review the Aafia Shahr Banu case, I request that this case should also be linked with other cases in the context of the Aafia Shahr Banu case.
(function(d, s, id){
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;}
js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;
js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3&appId=770767426360150”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
(function(d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) return;
js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;
js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.7”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));