ISLAMABAD: On Wednesday, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi drew attention to obvious shortcomings in the Supreme Judicial Council’s (SJC) complaint and referral procedures, namely with regard to the fixing, listing, and hearing of complaints.
Justice Rizvi stated in a dissenting note released on Wednesday that these problems threaten the judiciary’s independence and impede the council’s ability to operate effectively, which will erode public trust in the highest court in the land.
His remark was included in the Supreme Court’s 4:1 split ruling on February 19th, which decided that a judge’s resignation or retirement would not stop the SJC’s ongoing procedures against superior court judges for misconduct. The lone judge who dissented was Justice Rizvi.
Justice Rizvi pointed out that there had previously been a propensity to selectively consider certain complaints, and that the retirement of the respondent judge had helped to reduce the number of complaints.
Furthermore, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), who chairs the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), is empowered by the 2005 Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Enquiry to call a meeting of the council to consider and investigate the material that has been received.
Justice Rizvi stated that although the Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Enquiry 2005 has to be modified in light of this, giving the SJC any specific instructions would be unwise and inappropriate.
Nonetheless, in order to avoid unjustified delays or manipulation, it is anticipated that the council would put in place transparent and unambiguous processes for resolving, listing, and hearing complaints.
According to Justice Rizvi, the record indicates that the appellants’ concern stems from SJC’s unwillingness to move forward with a complaint that was lodged against former CJP Saqib Nisar following his retirement.
Subsequently, the impugned ruling presents the interpretation of Article 209 by a two-member bench of this court, stating that an individual who has retired or resigned from their position as a judge of the Supreme Court or a high court is not covered by Article 209.
According to the record, Afiya Sheherbano and the federal government did not file their current appeals within the allotted time frame.
