ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court has ruled that judges whose reputation and integrity come under serious doubt should be dismissed from service rather than granted compulsory retirement, emphasizing that public confidence is the foundation of the judiciary.
A SC three-member bench comprising Justice Shahid Waheed, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui issued a detailed verdict in a case involving former Additional District and Sessions Judge Afzal Zahid, who had served in Mailsi, Punjab.
In the nine-page judgment authored by Justice Waheed, the court observed that judicial integrity is not limited to the absence of proven corruption. It said judges are expected to maintain exemplary character, conduct and reputation, as public trust in the justice system depends on their credibility.
The bench noted that the standard for judges is higher than that applied to ordinary public officials, stressing that a judicial officer must remain above suspicion. According to the ruling, retaining a judge whose reputation has been damaged undermines both judicial ethics and public confidence in the courts.
The judgment stated that the judiciary derives its authority from public trust and moral standing rather than force, adding that any doubt about a judge’s integrity can weaken confidence in the entire legal system.
The court further held that granting compulsory retirement with benefits to a judge whose reputation has been compromised sends the wrong message and diminishes the importance of integrity within the judicial institution. It remarked that removing such individuals from service helps preserve the credibility of the judiciary.
Drawing on Islamic teachings, the judgment said the role of a judge is a sacred trust that requires honesty, fairness and moral uprightness. It cited Quranic verses, Hadith and the views of renowned Islamic jurists to underline that judges must possess both competence and unquestionable character.
The case arose after multiple complaints were filed against Afzal Zahid alleging corruption and misconduct. Following an assessment ordered by the Lahore High Court, supervisory reports raised concerns about his reputation and integrity.
Although a departmental inquiry did not conclusively establish corruption charges, the competent authority removed him from service on grounds of poor reputation. The Service Tribunal later converted the dismissal into compulsory retirement.
The Lahore High Court, through its registrar, challenged that decision before the Supreme Court, while the former judge sought reinstatement and the removal of adverse remarks from his record.
Allowing the appeal against the tribunal’s ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judges must not only be impartial and honest but must also be perceived as such by the public.
