ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court on Wednesday appointed amicus curiae (friend of the court) in Justice Shaukat Siddiqui’s petition to hold his trial in the open court.
The short order passed by a five-member bench, headed by Justice Gulzar Ahmed, said the petition of the Islamabad High Court’s judge is of a sensitive nature and therefore advocate Shahid Hamid and former Attorney General for Pakistan Munir A Malik have been appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court in interpretation of constitution.
The bench was hearing Justice Shaukat Siddiqui’s petition to hold his trial in an open court instead of in-camera proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council.
Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed said that judges are not sacred cows but strong bulls. This is not the matter of one person but also the institution (judiciary).
Makhdoom Ali Khan, Counsel for Justice Shaukat Siddiqui, said that an open trial is the public interest while in-camera proceedings are exception and only justified in peculiar circumstances and in the larger public interest like in the rape cases, custody issues and protection of minors.
He, however, contended that there is no public interest in in-camera proceeding against the judges. On the contrary public interest lies in the proceeding to be held openly.
Objecting to the AGP role in this case, the counsel said the attorney general has three caps in this case - one as a prosecutor, while in the Supreme Judicial Council he has filed a reply and third to assist the court in this matter. However, AGP Ashtar Ausaf said that he is not prosecutor in the case but assisting to conduct the proceedings.
Justice Ijazul Ahsan, another member of the bench, said there will be far-reaching consequences of this case, as the issue of in-camera proceeding was not deliberated in the Malik Asad and Asfandyar case. Justice Sheikh Azmat said that former CJP Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry case was decided on other ground and there was not an issue of in-camera proceedings.
The IHC judge in his 14-page constitutional petition has requested the SC to declare the SJC’s May 18 order null and void as it was passed without lawful authority.
The petition stated that the council’s May 18 order, by upholding paragraph 13 (1) of the SJC Procedure of Inquiry 2005, which permits the proceedings of the council in camera, violates Article 10-A of the Constitution, adding that Article 10-A provides every citizen with the right to a fair trial and due process.
It further stated that the IHC judge had nothing to hide as his dignity was not compromised if open proceedings were held.
Likewise, it was stated that due process requires a person to be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, adding this was not guaranteed in a secret trial.
The case was adjourned date
in office.
