Plea seeking open trial against judges: SC reserves judgment

Tariq Ullah Wardag

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgment in constitutional petition moved by Justice Shuakat Aziz Siddiqui and Justice Farukh Irfan, seeking open trial against them before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).

A five-judge bench of the apex court headed by Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed, heard the constitutional petitions filed by High Court Judges challenging SJC decision.

Last year the SJC had rejected  judge’s plea seeking open trial later they challenged the council’s order through a constitutional petition.

Makhdoom Ali Khan, counsel for Justice Siddiqui contended before the apex court that in-camera proceedings of misconduct against judges stigmatise their reputation and pleaded for an open trial.

The counsel also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment of 2010, under then chief justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, in which the court had held that the proceedings before the SJC were not a trial.

However, he added, it left open the question whether such proceedings were to be conducted in the open or in-camera.

Khan also stated that Article 209(5)(6) of the Constitution was clear about the SJC proceedings that they could,

He said in-camera proceedings before the SJC tarnished the image of a judge. “In a democratic society, the public had the right to know why a high constitutional functionality is being proceeded against,” he said, adding that the judge had the right to defend himself in open court.

Moreover, Hamid Khan counsel for Justice Farukh and both amicus curiae Muneer A Malik and Shahid Hamid had pleaded for an open trial of the judges.

Attorney General, Ashtar Ausaf  pleaded for  in-camera proceedings and said that Council did not make orders but recommendations it was an unique department of its nature, its proceedings could not be called a trail, he added.

Justice Sheikh Azmat Saeed remarked that the SJC makes recommendations after going through the arguments and examinations of testimony and at the conclusion of the case, Council make the decision public as well, then how we can say that councils proceedings remained in secret.

Subsequently, the bench after going through the arguments placed by the litigants reserved judgment to announce it later.