The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing on the appeal of former Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui till Thursday.
A five-member larger bench of the apex court headed by Justice Umar Ata Bandial and comprising Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah heard the case seeking dismissal of Report/Opinion of Supreme Judicial Council and Notification Issued by Ministry of Law dated 11.10.2018.
Advocate Hamid Khan, continuing his arguments, said that his client was not even given the right to appeal against the decision of the Supreme Judicial Council.
The law for judges is different from other officials. The courts have to abide by the constitution of Pakistan, said justice Atta Bandial adding, only the Parliament could change the law for judges. The job of the court was to enforce the law.
Justice Bandial said that the court can not allow anyone to speak anything in the name of freedom of speech.
All judges were prisoners of conscience and worked to deliver justice, he added.
He said that judges must disagree with each other in decisions.
He said that Shaukat Siddiqui made a very negative speech against the judiciary and is now trying to return to the same judiciary which he criticized earlier.
He observed that Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui could be worried due to references against him.
The judiciary had protected the rights of Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, he added.
He directed Hamid Khan to review Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s reply submitted after two months of the case.
Justice Ijaz asked, could the Supreme Judicial Council’s proceedings be challenged?
Hamid Khan said that the Supreme Court had been hearing appeals against the Supreme Judicial Council proceedings in the past.
Justice Mazhar said that the Judicial Council had not made a final recommendation in previous cases.
The council recommendation against Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui had also been implemented, he added.
Hamid Khan said that a judge could not be left to the mercy of an administrative inquiry.
Justice Bandial said that it was the duty of the court to interpret the constitution.
He said that the court’s job was not to make room in the constitution.
He said that senior judges recommended removal of the judge, no one else.
