ISLAMABAD - Islamabad High Court’s Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui on Friday contended that the Supreme Judicial Council chaired by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar acted against all norms of justice and dismissed his applications without even looking at them.
In a petition filed under Article 184(3), Justice Siddiqui challenged the SJC’s order of July 30 wherein it rejected the two applications of Justice Siddiqui seeking directions to the authorities concerned for provision of seven years’ record of superior court judges’ residential renovations and cost incurred on these renovations and directions to the Capital Development Authority (CDA) for provision of record on the basis of which allegations were levelled against him.
Pleading his case to be treated equally, Justice Siddiqui in his petition stated that the top court itself recognised that justice should not only be done but most manifestly be seen to be done.
“If the petitioner (Justice Siddiqui) gets access to certain record relating to the expenses incurred by some judges of the Lahore High Court, it would show that invariably large sums were spent on the renovation of the official residences,” he added.
He said that the order of SJC was void, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect based on the procedural impropriety and against the principles of natural justice.
The top court in its judgment regarding trial of judge in open court had recognised the right of Justice Siddiqui to open justice, the petition stated, adding that the top court directed for holding of the proceedings in the open and under the public gaze to uphold the highest norm of justice.
“The term 'open justice' is the wide amplitude and includes the right to a complete defence. The order of SJC of dismissing applications denies the basic right as same is against the aforesaid judgment of the top court,” he added.
It is submitted that the record sought through applications before SJC was highly necessary and relevant for the preparation of defense and in absence of such record the petitioner would be denied the right of fair trial and due process.
“This record can be summoned by the top court and its relevance can be determined,” the petition contended adding the denial of such an important substantive right was against the law and the constitution and on this score alone the order of SJC was liable to be set aside.
The basic allegation against Justice Siddiqui is the incurring of expenditure on the renovation of an official residence.
“For determination of this fact and whether it amounts to misconduct within the meaning of the Code of Conduct provided under Article 209 which is binding on all judges,” he added.
“It is a relevant fact to examine as to what expenses were incurred on other official residences. It is only fair that the petitioner is treated equally along with other judges of the superior courts,” he said.
The SJC’s order while not deciding the question of relevance of the requisite record, has acted without jurisdiction by taking into consideration the extraneous ground by holding that the said applications were filed to prolong the proceedings, the petition argued.
It is submitted that the record was available with CDA and AGPR and the same could be requisitioned on few hours notice.
“The applications were taken up right away by the SJC for hearing without seeking reply from prosecution. The question of relevance of these documents could only be taken up by the prosecution and the SJC could have decided the matter only after hearing the parties.”
Justice Siddiqui contended that the SJC’s order was no order at all because it lacked reasons. “It has been passed in sheer violation of Section 24 A of the General Clauses Act 1897 where-under it is mandatory that all authorities assign reasons for passing of any order.”
It is submitted that due process required that all necessary documents which were not in custody of the accused Justice Siddiqui and form part of the official record would be essential for the preparation of his defence
“It is therefore submitted that this court may please set aside the impugn order and a direction may be issued to the SJC to summon requisite record,”
It maintained that all the said record related to expenses and expenditure incurred by the other judges and civil servants in respect of the official accommodations.
“It is only just and fair that the petitioner is treated equally and in accordance with law, which is a fundamental right of the Petitioner under Article 25 of the Constitution.”
Justice Siddiqui prayed the top court to suspend the proceedings of the SJC till the decision of this petition.