Justice Naqvi raises issues with SJC inquiry against him, calls for CJP, 2 other judges to recuse themselves

Raising issues with the Supreme Judicial Council’s (SJC) inquiry against him, Supreme Court Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi on Friday called for Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and two other judges to recuse themselves from the matter.

Last month, the SJC had issued a show-cause notice to Justice Naqvi in connection with 10 complaints lodged against him over alleged misconduct and assets beyond means, and directed the judge to submit a reply within two weeks.

The SJC is a constitutional body that probes allegations of misconduct against the judges of Supreme and high courts. It comprises the chief justice, two senior-most Supreme Court judges and two senior-most high courts’ chief justices.

Currently, CJP Isa, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Justice Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Lahore High Court Chief Justice (CJ) Muhammad Ameer Bhatti and Balochistan High Court Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar are SJC members. CJP Isa, Justice Masood and CJ Akhtar had voted to issue the notice, while Justice Ahsan and CJ Bhatti had requested more time to consider the complaints.

In a “preliminary reply” today to the show-cause notice, Justice Naqvi cited “serious prejudice” against him and said CJP Isa, Justices Masood and CJ Akhtar should recuse themselves and not hear the matter.

“In the interest of propriety, justice and fairness, Mr Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and Mr Justice Naeem Akhtar ought not to hear the complaints against me,” he said, adding that their participation had tainted the SJC proceedings with “bias and makes all orders passed in such proceedings as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect”.

He further said that regarding Justice Masood, “it is submitted that having already expressed an opinion on the complaints against me, he is disqualified from hearing those complaints as a member of SJC.”

“The interests of justice, the due process of law and the requirements of natural justice dictate that no further proceedings of the SJC with regard to the so-called complaints against me be presided over or participated in” by the aforementioned three judges, Justice Naqvi argued.

He added that such an action would “not be unprecedented”, citing the recusal of Justices Ahsan and Masood from hearing the constitutional petitions challenging the reference against CJP Isa.

Elaborating on his “objections to the composition of the SJC”, Justice Naqvi explained that Justice Isa, in his capacity as a member of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), had opposed his nomination to the apex court and also “wrote a detailed dissenting note raising objections … in respect of certain judgments of mine as a judge of the LHC … , my income tax returns and my assets declaration”.

Justice Naqvi said he had requested the minutes of the JCP meeting and the dissenting note but the request was declined.

“It is submitted that denial of information which directly and materially affects my case before the SJC is in violation of my fundamental rights of fair trial, due process and access to information. Further, it is curious that while it is claimed that the JCP proceedings are confidential and its minutes cannot be made available to me, a press release was issued to the public at large informing about the SJC proceedings and orders passed therein subjecting me to a media trial and causing serious prejudice to me,” Justice Naqvi said.

Further, he said that Justices Isa and Masood had written to former chief justice Umar Ata Bandial in April to proceed on the complaints against him without any more delay. Justice Naqvi added that in responding to the letter, he had submitted that “seeking expeditious disposal of the complaints against me without even mentioning the complaints pending against other judges established the bias of the two honourable judges.”

Justice Naqvi said the two judges had denied any bias in a subsequent response to his letter.

He also said that Justices Isa and Akhtar were the chairman and a member of an inquiry commission to determine the veracity of alleged audio leaks regarding himself. He said the commission had passed an order about the matter on May 22 but the apex court had stayed its operation and proceedings on May 26, thus the matter was sub-judice. Justice Naqvi said that the same audio leaks being investigated by the commission were also a part of the complaints in the SJC and thus the two judges should not hear the complaints against him.

Regarding Justice Masood, Justice Naqvi said that from letters the judge cu-authored on April 3 and April 26, it was established that he had already “formed a view in the matter”.

Justice Naqvi also said that Justice Masood had taken three months to give his opinions on the complaints against the former when previous chief justice Bandial had asked for them in May.

“The opinion, however, was submitted on September 25, 2023. It was submitted only after Mr Justice Umar Ata Bandial had retired as chief justice of Pakistan. It is clear from the chronology of events that the opinion was deliberately delayed till the composition of the SJC had changed after retirement of Mr Justice Umar Ata Bandial. Further, the submission of the report was also leaked to the press and became a subject of press comment,” Justice Naqvi said.

He further added: “Third, as per press reports, in an interaction with court reporters at the oath-taking ceremony of Mr Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Mr Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, by inference, used derogatory language against me and disclosed outcome of the SJC proceedings.”

Lastly, he said that since Justice Masood was himself facing an SJC complaint, he should not hear the complaint against Justice Naqvi. “His participation in the proceedings resulting in a show cause notice being issued to me taints those proceedings, inter alia, with bias and makes all orders passed in such proceedings as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect,” the judge concluded.

He said the complaints against him were “frivolous” and were based on “conjecture and false allegations”.

“None are supported by evidence. They are, therefore, liable to be dismissed,” he said.

“The proceedings against me are politically motivated and lack legality, propriety and transparency,” Justice Naqvi concluded in his preliminary reply.

Issues with SJC proceedings

The judge also raised several issues with the SJC proceedings, saying that it was “evident from the record that the manner in which the proceedings have been initiated against me by issuing the show-cause notice by the SJC is repugnant to and inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution” and also in direct conflict with prior apex court judgements.

He said the issuance of a press release about the proceedings without his consent violated his fundamental rights, subjected him to a media trial and “further maligns and ridicules me in the public eye”.

Justice Naqvi argued that the SJC proceedings of SJC and the show-cause notice suffered several “constitutional, jurisdictional and legal defects”.

“There was no discussion or enquiry into the allegations against me. No information was sought either from me or any other quarter to verify the allegation,” the judge argued.

He also contrasted and criticised the treatment meted out to him and to the other judges facing complaints in the SJC against them.

“The show-cause notice does not disclose any allegation against me. That 10 complaints were attached with the show-cause notice. Those complaints contain multiple false and frivolous allegations which are not supported by evidence. The show-cause notice fails to identify the allegation(s) in those complaints which I am required to answer. It also does not specify the relevant provisions of the Constitution or the Code of Conduct of Judges which have allegedly been violated. The show-cause notice is, therefore, vague, illegal and a nullity.

“The allegations contained in the complaints are at variance. The show-cause notice does not identify whether I am called upon to answer the common allegations or that I am to respond to them jointly or that I am to respond to each and every allegation in each complaint,” Justice Naqvi said while criticising the content and technical points of the notice to him.