SC hints at taking serious action against Suri in disqualification case n Apex court reserves verdict on Shaukat Siddiqui’s petition against his removal as IHC judge.

 

ISLAMABAD  -  The Supreme Court Tuesday summoned former deputy speaker National Assembly Qa­sim Suri on next date and hinted to take action against him.

A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa conducted hearing of the alleged elections rigging case against Suri. Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) leader Qasim Suri was ordered to file a written reply of the allegations. The bench also sought a report from the SC Reg­istrar over a plea accusing Suri of rigging the 2018 elections.

Taking exception to the case of not being listed for five years while Suri enjoyed the perks and position of a deputy NA speaker, Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa questioned why the court should not take serious ac­tion for treason against the for­mer deputy speaker of the Na­tional Assembly and PTI leader in the disqualification case.

The counsel representing Balochistan National Party (BNP) leader Nawabzada Lash­kari Raisani contended that Suri took over the post of deputy speaker ‘illegally’ as he used a previous stay order to his ad­vantage. He urged the court to withdraw all perks and benefits to which Suri is entitled. 

The CJP remarked that Suri was involved in causing the current constitutional crisis in the country and hinted to­wards taking action against the PTI lawmaker. Lawyer Naeem Bukhari stated that Suri’s cas­es were merged with other cas­es by the court.

Justice Isa said, “After tak­ing the stay order, the case was not allowed to be scheduled for hearing and the internal system of the Supreme Court was ma­nipulated. I have been a lawyer since 1982. Why was the case not fixed for such a long time? When the assembly was dis­solved, was he still using the stay order to his benefit?”

Suri’s counsel, Bukhari, re­plied that he was still bound by the stay order at the time. He further added that in his opin­ion, the lawmaker’s disqualifi­cation and re-election have now become ‘ineffective’.

Then, the Chief Justice asked that if the same tactic was used to avoid filing a case in the apex court. Stating that if discrep­ancies such as this come to the forefront, the court might have to ‘look’ at the entire election process of 2018. He then asked Bukhari when Suri resigned from his position. “Qasim Suri resigned on April 16, 2022,” re­plied Bukhari.

“Suri had dissolved the as­sembly illegally, in the decision of the five-member bench, a case of high treason was recom­mended under Article 6, shall we not commence a treason tri­al against Suri? Action should be taken, whoever violates the Constitution will have to face the consequences,” said CJP Isa.

The court, while issuing a no­tice to the registrar for not fix­ing the case, also sought a re­port within three weeks.

Suri was accused of rigging the election in NA-265 during the 2018 polls and Raisani had challenged Suri’s victory with a petition seeking investigation.

The election tribunal had de­clared the election null and void and called for re-election, follow­ing which, Suri challenged the decision in the Supreme Court.

Later, the then-CJP Umar Atta Bandial rejected the decision of the tribunal and restored Suri to the post of deputy speaker and issued an injunction against the re-election.

Meanwhile, another bench of the apex court reserved its ver­dict on Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s petition against his removal as a judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

The five-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Jus­tice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Jus­tice Irfan Saadat Khan, conduct­ed hearing of the petitions of ex-judge IHC Shaukat Siddiqui, Islamabad Bar Association, and Karachi Bar Association.

The court on December 15, 2023 had issued notices to ex-DG ISI Faiz Hameed, former Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court (IHC) Anwar Kasi, Brig Ir­fan Ramay and the ex-registrar apex court Arbab Muhammad Arif. Khawaja Haris, represent­ing former DG ISI Faiz Hameed and Brigadier Irfan Ramay, told that his clients have denied the allegations, levelled by Shaukat Siddiqui against them. Hamid Khan, who appeared on behalf of the ex-judge IHC then said it makes his case clear.

Hamid requested the bench to set aside the recommenda­tions of the Council and the President’s notification remov­ing Shaukat Siddiqui as a judge of the IHC. 

The Chief Justice said that there are two aspects of the matter, one is speech and the other is its contents. He ques­tioned whether the allegations were inquired by the SJC or not?

Additional Attorney Gener­al Malik Javed replied that no inquiry was conducted by the Council in the instant matter. The chief justice said they don’t have mechanism who is telling the truth, adding here the ques­tion is not removal of a judge, but who will ascertain the true.

The CJP said that the petition­er has suffered enough due to delay in deciding the matter. He said the case is not only to grant relief to the petitioner. “My con­cern is the integrity of the insti­tution and ascertain the truth.” He asked the counsel; don’t you want to know the truth of the matter.

Justice Isa said that the Code of Conduct of judges does not say that the judges cannot make speech, adding that in Brit­ain the judges give interviews, while in America the judges ad­dress the bars.

Hamid requested the Court to quash the SJC order and the matter be referred to the Coun­cil? The chief justice questioned can the bench remand the mat­ter to the Council?

Kh Haris said that the former IHC judge went to the Bar and made a speech wherein he lev­elled specific allegations against the institutions. He also said that Siddiqui had also filed reply to show-cause notice, issued to him by SJC, and filed a petition before the apex court. He fur­ther told that the ex-judge had maligned the armed forces and the judiciary, and made speech for publicity.

Justice Faez remarked that it was not publicity, and asked Kh Haris why does not he considers it an act of whistle-blower? He said that the petitioner wrote to the then CJ IHC and when he took no action then in frustra­tion the petitioner should not have gone to the public?

Justice Faez said it is the stance of the petitioner’s coun­sel to remand the matter to the Council. The SJC re-examined and determine the matter once for all. It is not only in the inter­est of the petitioner, but also to the institution which serve the people. “Truth is diametrically opposed by the respondents.” He further said this is not the matter of one person, but it is the matter of public, they have to be satisfied, who is telling the truth.

Attorney General for Paki­stan Mansoor Usman Awan said that certain allegations (seri­ous) were levelled by the ex-judge IHC, but have been denied by the other side. He asked the court to see the matter in its en­tirety, and before remanding it to the SJC the Court would have to first overturn the SC judg­ment in Afia Sher Bano case.

The lawyer of KBA, Sala­huddin Ahmed, said the mat­ter can’t be remanded to the SJC as the judge has attained the age of superannuation. He, however, said that the order of the SJC be declared unconsti­tutional and null & void, and in order to probe the petitioner’s allegations constitute a com­mission of inquiry.

The bench after hearing the arguments, the Court put three questions including whether an inquiry was conducted by Su­preme Judicial Council (SJC), if not then was it a constitution­al and legal requirement, and if it was then what are of it conse­quences of doing so?

The lawyers of Lt Gen Faiz Hameed, Brig Irfan Ramay, ex-CJ IHC Anwar Kasi, and former Registrar SC Arbab Muhammad Arif was directed to file concise statement on the questions. The bench said after examining the statements if they consider that there was need to further hear the case then it be fixed, other­wise will pass the judgment.