ISLAMABAD: For the first time in Pakistan’s judicial history, the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Monday commenced open court hearing of a reference against a sitting high court judge and rejected all his requests for the provision of details about residences of superior court judges.

A five-judge SJC, headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar, took up the reference on misconduct against senior judge of the Islamabad High Court Justice Shaukat A. Siddiqui for alleged renovation of his official residence beyond entitlement.

Taking up the reference in the refurbished and packed-to-capacity Courtroom No 1, which is equipped with a new sound system, for the first time, the council expressed the intention of completing its hearing within the next three days.

“I do not want to carry any stigma or baggage with me,” the CJP said, adding that time was ripe for concluding all the pending two or three references against the superior court judges.

SBC wants judicial probe into judge’s observation about alleged meddling by intelligence agencies in judicial affairs

The SJC would not like to keep the sword of Damocles upon the heads of those facing references before the council, the CJP observed while reminding senior counsel Hamid Khan that he knew how the charge against one of the judges had been removed.

The CJP, however, took exception to the behaviour of Justice Siddiqui who despite earlier assurances came to the rostrum repeatedly to say: “At least for once an impression should be created that I am being treated equally,” and that the “council should proceed in a way to show that justice is being dispensed”.

“I would be taking exception to this,” the CJP warned, asking senior counsel Hamid Khan to tell his client that instead of addressing the SJC in such a manner he should give instructions to him because this did not augur well for the institution of the judiciary.

“This kind of behaviour is not acceptable,” said CJP Nisar reminding the counsel that Justice Siddiqui had given an undertaking that he would not interfere in council proceedings.

The SJC, however, rejected all the three applications that Justice Siddiqui had moved. It observed that the applications had no relevance with the charge the senior judge was facing.

Justice Siddiqui had sought information about expenditures incurred on the maintenance of each official accommodation in the occupation of judges of the Supreme Court, Federal Shariat Court and high courts during the past seven years.

He also had asked for records related to the expenses incurred on the houses owned by the judges of the superior judiciary but declared as official accommodation.

The judge had also sought particulars of the judges of the superior courts who despite having official accommodation received or were receiving house rent allowance of Rs65,000 every month.

Besides, the judge had asked for details of inquiries and criminal proceedings, if any, against Ali Anwar Gopang, the originator of the reference and a senior official of the Capital Development Authority (CDA), as well as the status of an inquiry about illegal appointments made by him, including that of his son, Kashif Anwar Gopang.

Moreover, he had demanded details of judicial proceedings and contempt of court proceedings if any against the CDA official.

One of the applications emphasised that whatever expenditures had been incurred on the residence of the judge was in the possession of the state and not that of the judge and therefore under the relevant laws the judge could not be charged for the refurbishment, maintenance or renovation of the house he was living in. The application stated that such provisions intended to ensure independence of the judiciary and therefore the charge being faced by Justice Siddiqui was misconceived, also requesting the court not to proceed in haste as he wanted to examine the documents being sought in his defence.

Attorney General Khalid Jawed Khan, the prosecutor in the reference, said the points raised by Justice Siddiqui were arguments, which should be highlighted during course of arguments, besides the applications moved by the judge were general in nature. If the demands were accepted, even a civil servant facing some charge may in his defence ask for the entire record of his department in future, he argued.

On Monday, the prosecution produced four of the seven witnesses to record evidence, but the affidavit of Ali Anwar Gopang could be recorded as evidence on oath on which the cross-examination will be done by Hamid Khan on Tuesday because he was not prepared on Monday.

SBC seeks judicial probe into allegations

The Sindh Bar Council (SBC) on Monday demanded a full court reference or meeting of the Supreme Court to probe into the observation of Justice Siddiqui about alleged meddling by intelligence agencies in the affairs of judiciary.

Speaking at a press conference, SBC vice chairman Salahuddin Gandapur along with representatives of the Karachi and Malir bar associations said that a full court reference or meeting of the Supreme Court under Article 184 of the Constitution could probe a matter of public interest.

The representatives of bar councils must also be made part of the full court meeting, they said, adding that an independent committee of the Senate could also look into the matter.

They said the allegations levelled by Justice Siddiqui were of very serious nature and apparently put a question mark on the independence of the judiciary. Therefore, it was necessary to hold an independent and impartial inquiry, the bar representatives insisted.

Published in Dawn, July 31st, 2018