Islamabad: The Supreme Court rejected Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi’s request for an injunction against the proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council.
A 3-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan heard the request of Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi for an injunction against the proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council. Did it.
During the hearing, Justice Jamal Mandukhel addressed the lawyer of Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and said that in your petition it is written that the complaints are based on malice, how can you come to the conclusion that the complaints are based on malice without hearing the complainants.
Justice Aminuddin Khan said we cannot decide your application without making the complainants a party. The lawyer replied that there is an example of Justice Qazi Faiz Isa’s case, on which Justice Aminuddin said that in Justice Qazi Faiz Isa’s case, everyone, including the asset recovery unit, was made a party.
The lawyer argued that when the Supreme Judicial Council decided to proceed with the proceedings against Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, on that day 21 petitions against the judges were dismissed and none of the 19 complainants were heard. If the complainants are made a party in this case then Article 184(3) will be invoked against all the complaints dismissed by the Supreme Judicial Council.
Justice Aminuddin Khan remarked that the matter is now before the Supreme Court. The Court considers that first the complainants should be given notice, otherwise the proceedings cannot proceed. If you open the door of this court, everyone will come against the judges. No complainant came before us, the judge came, if you had not mentioned the complainants against Justice Mazahar in your petition, the court would have proceeded in this case.
Justice Jamal Mandukhel remarked that “the court says that how can you decide the complainants without hearing them?” Justice should not only be done, it should also be seen to be done, they do not want to open the Supreme Court in front of the people to raise their fingers.
He further said in his remarks, “We want to give a decision in such a way that no one’s rights are violated, either the complaint in the council is so solid and comprehensive that no judge can escape, or else the council should take strict action on the baseless complaint.” There should be, there should not be a middle way, there is more money in advocacy, a lawyer becomes a judge for honor.
The court directed Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi to file the amended petitions, upon which the lawyer pleaded for the Supreme Judicial Council to stay the proceedings for the second time, to which Justice Aminuddin Khan said that he had not yet heard the merits of the case. After hearing the case on merits, the order of injunction will be reviewed. The court directed the complainants to be made parties. Later, the Supreme Court rejected Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi’s request for an injunction against the Supreme Judicial Council proceedings.
It should be noted that the next meeting of the Judicial Council against Justice Mazahir Naqvi is to be held on January 11.
(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’));