ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday ruled that the resignation or retirement of an apex court judge would not dispose of Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) proceedings already under way against them.
A five-member bench delivered a four-to-one majority decision during a hearing on the federal government’s intra-court appeal against the apex court’s 2023 verdict in the Afiya Shehrbano Zia case, which had held that judges who either retire or resign cannot be questioned by the SJC over alleged misconduct.
The bench was headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan and included Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel, Musarrat Hilali and Irfan Saadat Khan while Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi dissented from the majority decision.
The court ruled that only the SJC would have the authority to terminate the proceedings against a judge in case of their retirement or resignation.Last month, former SC judge Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi — who was facing complaints of misconduct — resigned from the apex court, however, the SJC had decided to continue the hearing of complaints against the judge despite his resignation.
The federal government had also subsequently appealed the decision in the Afiya Shehrbano Zia case which was accepted by the apex court.
Also read: SHC orders immediate restoration of internet services, social media
The federal government had pleaded that the 2023 verdict, issued by a two-judge bench, including the now-retired Justice Ijazul Ahsan and Justice Munib Akhtar, made the SJC “virtually redundant” by making Article 209 inapplicable to judges who either retire or resign.
On Feb 12, the five-judge bench hearing the appeal had appointed former attorney general Khalid Jawed Khan, senior counsel Khawaja Muhammad Haris, Abdul Moiz Jaferii, and Faisal Siddiqui as amici.
The bench had sought assistance in determining whether pending proceedings before SJC were abated if the judge retires or resigns.
The court had also asked if the judge’s resignation — at a time when the SJC is hearing complaints against them — was tantamount to avoiding accountability under Article 209 of the Constitution.
The petitioner sought re-election and the annulment of the polls held on February 8, but the Supreme Court (SC) dismissed his case on Wednesday and fined him Rs. 500,000 for failing to appear in court.
A three-member Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Musarrat Hilali and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, chaired by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa, heard a petition from Brig (retd) Ali Khan requesting that the court declare the elections null and void and order new ones due to purported poll manipulation.
The general election’s lack of openness has been criticized by a number of political parties, including Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F).
The disclosures made by now-former Rawalpindi Division commissioner Liaqat Chatha, who tendered his resignation on Saturday due to “guilty conscience” for encouraging widespread electoral tampering in the garrison city, added to the already mounting doubts about the polls and raised political temperatures throughout the nation.
The CJP asked for the petitioner’s identify during today’s hearing. In response, the applicant informed the court that he or she was a former military commander who had been court-martialed in 2012.
“The state should ensure that a court-martialed person does not use the rank of brigadier,” the judge stated.
The extra attorney general, complimenting the court on the efforts to get in touch with the petitioner, stated that in addition to the police having been dispatched to Khan’s residence, the Ministry of Defence had also sent a notice, which was put up on the gate to indicate that the petitioner was not in.
The chief judge responded to the former military officer’s email about the petitioner’s departure from the nation by saying, “Look at this petitioner [who] left the country after filing the application in the court.”
“I have never seen this before,” CJP Isa said, raising the possibility that the petitioner’s departure from the nation following the supreme court’s decision was part of a plot.
Judge Mazhar emphasized that the petitioner did not speak with any media outlet or file the application, according to the petitioner himself.
It’s important to note that the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has expressed concerns about the validity and dependability of the general elections, particularly the post-polling procedure, in addition to political parties who have doubts about the transparency of polls.
