SC reserves verdict in ex-judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s removal case

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s larger bench has reserved the verdict in the removal case of former judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui.

A five-member larger bench, headed by Justice Qazi Faez Isa, heard the case.

Shaukat Siddiqui’s lawyer hamid Khan raised the point of removal his client without an inquiry.

The Attorney General said that former ISI chief Faiz Hameed, Brigadier Ramey and former IHC chief justice Anwar Kansi rejected Shaukat Siddiqui’s allegations.

The chief justice remarked questioning whether any judge is allowed to make such a speech. “The people should know the facts and the truth; there is a matter of the credibility of the institutions in this case. The truth will have to be found out because the allegations are against officials of significant institutions. There is also a legal procedure for removing the deputy commissioner. How can a constitutional office holder be removed without the prescribed procedure?” the chief justice observed.

He said Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s case is also a matter of the judiciary and every case sets a judicial precedent for the future.

Former ISI chief General (retd) Faiz Hameed and Brigadier Irfan Ramey were represented by lawyer Khawaja Haris.

Shaukat Siddiqui’s lawyer Hamid Khan in his arguments requested to declare the proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council null and void. He explained that his client was accused of making a speech, but the judge was removed from office without an inquiry. F

aiz Hameed’s lawyer, Khawaja Haris, confirmed that there was no factual inquiry while rejecting all the allegations of the former judge. The chief justice said that the Attorney General stated that there was no factual inquiry; now, how can this five-member bench of the Supreme Court decide?

“We cannot decide by tossing a coin. We want to set an example through this cases. Now, who will search for the truth? Can this matter be sent back to the Supreme Judicial Council?” the chief justice observed

Shaukat Siddiqui’s lawyer declared the proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council illegal and pleaded to send the matter back to the Supreme Judicial Council.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail asked if you did not infer from the speech that the allegations are true. Was it appropriate for a judge to make such a statement? The chief justice said that there is no ban on the judge making a speech; if so, then many judges would have been retired by making speeches in the bar. The issue is the points raised in Shaukat Siddiqui’s speech. If we declare the proceedings of the council null and void, then it will be like accepting the allegations.

Khawaja Haris said that the Supreme Judicial Council said that Shaukat Siddiqui insulted the judiciary. The chief justice said, where did the matter of insulting the judiciary come from? Which section of the Code of Conduct did Shaukat Siddiqui violate?

The Attorney General stated that the proceedings has been challenged after the retirement of the judge, and the federal government’s appeal should be heard together with this case.

Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi said that there are also allegations of corruption against Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui.

Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail questioned how the secretary council could be a complainant. Hamid Khan clarified that no individual crime was imposed on Shaukat Siddiqui. Anwar Kansi gave a statement against Shaukat Siddiqui, and he got a clean chit in his case.

The chief justice stopped him and said, do not talk on assumptions; this is a case of Article 184/3.

Lawyer Bar Council Salahuddin opposed sending Shaukat Siddiqui’s case back to the Supreme Judicial Council.

The chief justice said, how can the court set up any inquiry commission? How can we give the decision on the fate of the judges in the hands of the SHO? The court reserved the verdict after the completion of the arguments, while writing the order of today’s hearing.

The bench directed all the parties to submit written submissions on the questions. The court directed to submit written submissions within three weeks.

The chief justice remarked that if deemed necessary, the case can also be fixed for hearing again.