THE Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) Thursday recommended removal of former judge of the Supreme Court, Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, after finding him guilty of misconduct. The SJC, headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, gave its reserved opinion on nine complaints filed against the former SC judge. It opined that he was guilty of misconduct and should have been removed from the office of judge.
In the face of proceedings against him in the SJC, former judge Mazahar Ali Naqvi tendered resignation on the assumption that this would automatically halt further proceedings by the apex accountability platform for judges. However, on 21 February, a five-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, approved the intra-court appeal (ICA) of the federal government and held that if the proceedings have already been initiated by the SJC against a judge, same shall not abate (halt) on his resignation or retirement, as the case may be, during such proceedings. It was prayed in the appeal that a judge against whom proceedings are initiated under Article 209 of the Constitution ought to be proceeded against and his resignation would not result in abatement of such proceedings. Therefore, the SJC decided to continue proceedings against the former judge and afforded several opportunities to him to clear his position but he opted not to defend himself. Now in the wake of the SJC verdict, legal experts argue that judges will no longer be able to evade accountability while keeping all their perks by resigning as soon as a reference is taken up by the Supreme Judicial Council. This is considered to be a significant step because in the past a vast majority of cases before the SJC would never be concluded simply because the accused judge would retire. There is no doubt some sections of the legal community are trying to give a political colour to the findings and recommendations of the Council but the fact remains the verdict has been given on merit. There were clear allegations of corruption and misconduct against the judge, witnesses corroborated them and the accused judge could not offer anything to prove his innocence. If a judge has done something wrong, there is absolutely no reason to allow him to go scot free merely because of offering resignation in anticipation of a disciplinary action by the SJC. Judges hold others accountable and it is quite logical that they should themselves set high standards of integrity and honesty. The issue of judicial independence must not be mixed with corruption, irregularities and misconduct. A constitutional lawyer Usama Khawar has rightly pointed out that “by subjecting Justice Naqvi to disciplinary proceedings and recommending his removal, the SJC has breached the perceived immunity of judges and opened avenues for the scrutiny and potential sanctioning of judicial misconduct.”
