ISLAMABAD - The Supreme Court of Pakistan has turned down the request of Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi to grant stay against the proceedings of Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), which is probing the judge’s properties.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din, and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Musarrat Hilali Tuesday conducted hearing of the petitions of Justice Naqvi against the show-cause notices issued by the Council.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, representing the Supreme Court judge, said that the court is doing the new thing, it has the power and it can implead an informer, who provided information to the SJC. However, he added that he was only informing about the danger. He said that recently the Council has dismissed 19 complaints without calling the complainants. He said that if the Court will issue notice to the informer then it would expose itself to the public.
Justice Amin told the counsel that the petitioner has filed the petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. He questioned whether the petitioner wanted the case to be proceeded according to his desire, adding that he should have confined pleading only to the SJC proceedings. He further said when the complaints will be discussed in the petition then the bench would have to issue notice to the complainant.
Justice Amin said after reading the pleading they have come to the conclusion that without impleading the informer can’t proceed in the matter. Justice Jamal questioned that without hearing the other side, how come we say that your point of view is correct. Justice Musarrat reminded Makhdoom that they are hearing the instant matter not under Article 204 of the Constitution. The judge’s counsel submitted that Article 209 is to protect the administration of justice before the Council. He contended that can or does an informer has the right to appear before the Court? The matter of contempt is between the court and the contemnor and the informer/complainant has nothing to do anything. Entertaining the contempt petition does not give the right to the complainant to appear before the court.
Upon that Justice Jamal remarked that in this petition the informer will face the consequences, but in the contempt this does not happen. Therefore, in proceeding under Article 184(3) of the Constitution the informer has the right to plead before this court, he added. Justice Amin said that the pleading of the petitioner revolves around the complaints. Justice Jamal said that if the Court declares that the complaint is false or frivolous then it will be judgment against the complainant, and in light of that the contempt, civil or criminal proceeding could be initiated against him. Makhdoon said that it is not in the petition that the complaint is mala fide or biased and dismiss it. He said that the Court is compelling him to say that as there is no informer before it then how to decide the petition and when there will be any informer before the Court then it can decide the matter. He argued the court that if the Council had dismissed 19 complaints then whether it has denied anyone’s right.