ISLAMABAD: A five-judge Supreme Court bench is scheduled to take up on Tuesday (today) the case of a sitting Islamabad High Court judge asking for an open trial of his reference pending before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on misconduct.

The larger SC bench will consist of Justices Gulzar Ahmed, Sheikh Azmat Saeed, Dost Muhammad Khan, Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Sajjad Ali Shah. Senior counsel Makhdoom Ali Khan is likely to defend Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the IHC.

Interestingly, the reference against Justice Siddiqui is also fixed for hearing on Tuesday by the SJC – a constitutional forum that examines the conduct of superior court judges.

At the last hearing on Nov 2, a two-judge SC bench had referred the matter to Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar for the constitution of a larger bench, besides seeking assistance of Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf since the case involved constitutional interpretation.

In its order, the SC bench had also noted that the grounds urged by the petitioner judge was of first impression and, therefore, required serious consideration which included constitutionality of Rule 13(1) of the Procedure of Inquiry 2005 of the SJC. However, the bench had ignored a request to stay the proceedings in the SJC scheduled for Nov 7 (today).

A show-cause notice was issued to Justice Siddiqui on Feb 15. The reference against the IHC judge on misconduct was initially moved on the complaint of some retired employees of the Capital Development Authority for alleged refurbishment of official residence beyond entitlement.

In his petition, Justice Siddiqui had requested the Supreme Court to suspend the SJC proceedings till the pendency of his plea.

The petition questioned paragraph 13 of the SJC Procedure of Inquiry 2005 that deals with 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 trial before the council to take place in accordance with the law and was detrimental to the life and liberty of the person facing 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.

“It is in the larger interests of the judiciary that the proceedings are not conducted in open court as the issues brought before SJC and the allegations levelled may ultimately be proved to be false, frivolous and vexatious,” the council had held in its order.

But the petitioner judge had argued that the sanctity of no institution could be protected by making it a cloistered virtue. “There is no greater protection than free speech and a free press for the independence of the constitutional institutions,” the petition argued.

More­over, it said, the petitioner 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 of the council were held in camera because it would damage the image of the institutions.

Published in Dawn, November 7th, 2017