ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) — a constitutional forum which examines the conduct of superior court judges and then recommends their removal from the top post — on Monday reserved its ruling to determine whether a judge facing a reference can sit in the council to try another judge.

An informed source told Dawn that the council initiated the proceedings on a reference against a sitting judge of the Lahore High Court, but decided to reserve its verdict when the judge objected to the presence of one of the SJC members who is also facing a similar reference relating to misconduct before the council.

The LHC judge is accused of having offshore assets at the time when he was inducted into the judiciary, and it has to be decided whether or not the foreign companies have ever been declared as assets.

During the long proceedings presided over by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, the high court judge, through his counsel, asked how the SJC could determine the fate of a judge when one of its members was facing allegations of misconduct in the same council.

Established under Article 209 of the Constitution, the SJC probes allegations against judges of the Supreme Court and high courts regarding misconduct or inability to perform their duties for reasons of mental or physical incapacity. Under Article 209(8), the council also issues a code of conduct requiring the judges to demonstrate the highest moral and ethical values.

Meanwhile, the SJC will also resume proceedings against another senior judge of the Islamabad High Court on Tuesday on a reference relating to refurbishment of official residence beyond entitlement.

The judge, who had been issued a show-cause notice on Feb 15, requested the SJC to hold his trial in the open, arguing that Article 10A of the Constitution guaranteed fair trial and due process. But his request was turned down by the council on May 18.

Consequently, the judge filed in the Supreme Court a constitutional petition arguing that he enjoyed the fundamental right to insist that the inquiry into his conduct be held publicly. He sought a directive for the SJC to suspend the proceedings till the pendency of his petition in the apex court.

In his petition, the judge also questioned paragraph 13 of the Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Inquiry 2005 that deals with the in-camera proceedings and argued that the section was in violation of Articles 4, 10A, 18 and 25 of the Constitution because it did not allow the trial in the council to take place in accordance with the law and was detrimental to the life and liberty of the one facing the trial.

The petition argued that the SJC had erred by observing that it was on account of the sanctity of the institution and the dignity of the applicant and other judges whose matters were inquired into by the council that in-camera proceedings were expedient.

The petitioner said he had nothing to hide and his dignity was not compromised if the proceedings were held in the open, adding that it was not in the interest of the judiciary if the proceedings were held in-camera because it would damage the image of the institutions.

Published in Dawn, October 10th, 2017