Justice Mazhar Naqvi case; A major decision of the Supreme Judicial Council

The Supreme Judicial Council accepted the request of Supreme Court Justice Mazahir Naqvi to ‘open’ the proceedings of the Judicial Council against him. A meeting of the Supreme Judicial Council was held under the chairmanship of Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Qazi Faiz Isa.

During the meeting, the complaints against Justice Mazahar Naqvi were reviewed and by accepting the request of Justice Mazahar Naqvi to open the proceedings, it has been decided to keep it open.

It should be remembered that today Justice Mazahir Naqvi had demanded to open judicial council proceedings against him, he had written a letter to the judicial council in which he had demanded open proceedings against him.

In the letter, Justice Mazahir Naqvi wrote that in the Shaukat Aziz case, the Supreme Court recognized the right of the judicial council to have an open hearing.

He wrote that the Constitution of Pakistan gives me the right to an open hearing, I have raised objections to the formation of the Judicial Council.

He further wrote that my media trial is being done due to the in camera meeting of the council, I am being ridiculed due to the council action, the demand for transparent trial is that justice should not be done but should be seen to be done. .

Justice Mazahir Naqvi wrote that several of my petitions are pending before the Judicial Council, on November 13 I questioned the legality of the notice, demanding its withdrawal.

He pleaded that both my petitions are scheduled for hearing on December 15, the proceedings of the Judicial Council should be stayed till the decision on the petitions.

the background

It should be noted that on October 27, the 5-member Supreme Judicial Council headed by Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa issued a show cause notice to Supreme Court Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi on the basis of majority and sought a response within 14 days. .

The Supreme Judicial Council headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faiz Isa includes Justice Tariq Masood, Justice Ejaz Ul Ahsan, Chief Justice of Lahore High Court Muhammad Amir Bhatti and Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court Naeem Akhtar.

In the statement issued after the meeting, it was said that 10 complaints were submitted against Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi and the council decided to issue a show cause notice by a majority vote of 3 to 2 and to issue a show cause notice to him within 14 days. Asked to answer.

The Supreme Judicial Council’s statement said that the judges who opposed the decision said they needed more time to examine the complaints against Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi.

In the preliminary reply submitted on November 11, Justice Mazahir Naqvi had complained of biased and biased behavior and said that Chief Justice Qazi Faiz Isa, Justice Tariq Masood and Chief Justice Naeem Akhtar had separated themselves from the bench and did not hear the matter. Should do.

On November 20, Justice Mazahir Naqvi decided to face the Supreme Judicial Council’s proceedings against him and also challenged the show cause notice issued by the Judicial Council, which said that the proceedings were initiated as extrajudicial and without any legal authority. was without

The Supreme Judicial Council then issued a fresh show-cause notice to Justice Mazahar and directed him to file a reply and defend himself within fifteen days.

On December 4, Justice Mazahar had once again approached the Supreme Court and sought to quash the revised show-cause notice issued by the Supreme Court, indicating its intention to pursue the earlier constitutional petition.

On December 6, he drew the attention of a three-senior-most-judge Supreme Court committee to remain silent on his petitions challenging the issuance of show-cause notices despite the lapse of time stipulated in the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, 2023. Was withdrawn.

Yesterday on December 13, Justice Syed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi in ​​an open letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan and all other judges of the Supreme Court said that the behavior meted out to me by the Supreme Judicial Council is insulting.

It should be remembered that after the name of Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi, who became a judge of the Supreme Court in 2020, appeared in an alleged audio leak, a case of misconduct was filed against him by the Pakistan Bar Council and others in the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). Several complaint petitions were filed on the allegation.

In a petition submitted by Muslim League (N) Lawyers Forum Punjab, Justice Mazahir Ali Akbar Naqvi was accused of serious violations of the Code of Conduct of Judges.

Similarly, Mian Dawood, a lawyer from Lahore, filed a reference against Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi in ​​the Supreme Judicial Council and demanded an investigation into his assets.

The reference said that the judge used his influence to get his sons and daughter educated abroad and to get ‘financial benefits’ from a businessman, Zahid Rafique, ‘the judge, PTI and its leader Imran Khan. openly show their relations with’, they also claim to be dangerous against other political parties because of their personal grudges.

After that, the National Assembly sent the case of Justice Mazahir Ali Naqvi, who was facing allegations of having assets in excess of his income, to the Public Accounts Committee.

The then head of the Supreme Judicial Council and former Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Atta Bandyal sought the opinion of Justice Sardar Tariq Masood when complaints were filed in the Supreme Court.

Justice Mazahar Ali Naqvi had earlier in a letter to former Chief Justice Umar Atta Bandial termed the action against him as a malicious campaign and said that frivolous and frivolous complaints have been lodged against him which are against the judiciary. Are part of a malicious campaign.

The Supreme Court judge wrote that the property is alleged to be worth more than the value shown in the revenue records and income tax returns.

Justice Mazahar Ali Naqvi had said that the courts of the world have been working for centuries on the basic principle that justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done, but unfortunately, I have to say that in my case, I have such a view. does not come