ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Umar Ata Bandial, who heads the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) — a constitutional body that probes allegations of misconduct by superior court judges — has sought the opinion of Justice Sardar Tariq Masood on a number of complaints moved against a sitting judge of the Supreme Court.

The complaints before the SJC have accused Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi of violating the code of conduct for judges, thus committing misconduct.

Justice Masood is currently the third senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, after the CJP and Justice Qazi Faez Isa.

When a complaint or information is received by the SJC, it is always referred to a member of the council before initiating any formal proceedings to ascertain whether or not it was a fit case to be proceeded. Justice Tariq Masood is a member of the five-man SJC.

SJC inquiry initiated against judge was later halted for unknown reasons, SBC complaint notes

Section 7 of SJC Inquiry of SJC Procedure of Enquiry Rules 2005 states: “Once any information in respect of enquiry into the conduct of a judge is received by any member or the council, it is presented to the chairman of the council, who then refer the same to any member of the council to look into the said information; and to express his opinion in relation to the sufficiency or otherwise of the information; if the council is satisfied that the information prima facie discloses sufficient material for an enquiry, it shall proceed to consider the same.”

According to the rules, the member to whom the chairman has referred the information examines the same and ascertains if the information so received discloses specific particulars of misconduct, and provides factual details necessary to form prima facie opinion in respect of the guilt of the judge.

Complaints against Justice Naqvi have been filed by the PML-N Lawyers Forum, Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), Sindh Bar Council (SBC), Lahore-based lawyer Advocate Mian Dawood and Advocate Ghulam Murtaza Khan, among others.

In its complaint, the SBC has cited a 2014 judgement in which a Supreme Court bench consisting of then Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, Justice Amir Hani Muslim and Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry had made certain observations about the conduct of Justice Naqvi when he was a judge of the Lahore High Court.

“We may observe that discretion exercised by the learned judge (respondent) while passing the impugned order in the instant case has appeared to us to be somewhat colourable as because after dismissal of second application for suspension of sentence bearing the same ground the only difference in the respondent’s third application for the same relief was a different counsel for that respondent,” the bench had said.

After the observation in the judgement, the respondent judge filed a review petition seeking expungement of the strictures passed against him by the bench, the complaint recalled, adding that the review was fixed before a bench consisting of Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry and Justice Gulzar Ahmed.

The bench not only dismissed the review, but also observed: “… a judge of the High Court approaching this court in person and seeking review... is surely out of the ordinary and it may raise many an eyebrow in view of the provisions of Articles VI of the Code of Conduct prescribed by the Supreme Judicial Council.”

Keeping in view the conduct of the respondent judge and observations by the Supreme Court bench, an inquiry was reportedly initiated by the SJC against him. But the inquiry subsequently was halted by the council for unknown reasons, the complaint said.

The SBC argued that judges of the superior courts were appointed to dispense justice and hold everyone accountable (including themselves) under the law. But by abruptly halting the inquiry into the conduct of the respondent judge for unknown reasons, despite the fact that the inquiry sprang from observations about the judicial conduct, the SJC has led strength to the famous quote by Charles Dickens that “charity begins at home, but justice begins next door,” the complaint regretted.

Despite these strictures which are still in the field, the complaint alleged, the respondent judge was out of turn elevated to the Supreme Court in violation of the principle laid down in the Malik Asad Ali case. Interestingly, the complaint regretted that the appointment of the respondent judge was initiated by then CJP Gulzar Ahmed, who himself had passed strictures against the judge. The judgement clearly showed the respondent judge had violated clauses II, III, IX, X and XI of the Code of Conduct, the complaint alleged.

Published in Dawn, June 1st, 2023