Supreme Court’s Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi — who was due to submit his reply to the show cause notice issued to him by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on complaints registered against him on Friday — instead raised objections on Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa and two other members of the council.
“Their 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,” Justice Naqvi stated about the top judge and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan in the 18-page document submitted to the SJC.
The judge objected that CJP Isa and Justice Afghan being the chairman and member of the inquiry commission, respectively, investigating the audio leaks case against him, cannot participate in the SJC’s proceedings against him.
“The [inquiry commission] proceedings are sub judice. The same alleged audio leaks which were referred to the inquiry commission are subject matter of the complaints against me before SJC. The SRO is still in the field. S.R.O. 596(I)/2023 dated May 19, 2023 is attached as Annex L. Order of the Supreme Court dated May 26, 2023 passed in Constitution Petitions No.14 to 17 of 2023 is attached as Annexure M,” he stated.
Justice Naqvi then urged the two judges to recuse themselves from hearing the complaints against him in the SJC.
Moreover, he maintained the same about Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, basing his objection on the claim that the judge is “disqualified from hearing those complaints as a member of SJC after having expressed an opinion on the complaints against me”.
The show-cause notice was issued to Justice Naqvi a day after the SJC met — for the first time in three years to discuss complaints filed against superior court judges — under CJP Isa.
SJC is the only constitutional forum that has power to remove judges of superior courts on different charges.
Besides Justice Naqvi, complaints have been filed against other judges of the superior court. However, it is unclear whether notices or action against other judges was discussed.
