In a recent session at the Supreme Court, it was highlighted that if a judge facing proceedings under Article 209 of the Constitution chooses to retire as mentioned in Article 195, continuing those proceedings would go against the provisions of Article 195.
This information was presented following the court’s order on January 23 in response to a petition from Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, a dismissed judge from the Islamabad High Court. Khwaja Haris, the legal representative for former DG ISI Lt Gen (retd) Faiz Hameed and Brigadier (retd) Irfan Ramey, submitted a concise statement to the apex court.
Haris argued that the constitution doesn’t allow the initiation or continuation of proceedings under Article 209 if a judge has resigned or reached the retirement age before the proceedings start or conclude. Interpreting the constitution in a way that grants the Supreme Judicial Council the power to initiate or continue proceedings against a retired judge would not only violate Article 195 and Article 209 but also amount to rewriting the Constitution, according to Khwaja Haris.
He emphasized that the primary purpose of initiating or continuing proceedings under Article 209 is to assess the “professional fitness” of a judge. Once a judge ceases to hold the position, the entire purpose of these proceedings becomes nullified. Khwaja Haris pointed out that if the framers of the Constitution intended for proceedings under Article 209 to continue against a retired judge, they would have specified the purpose and granted the Supreme Judicial Council the necessary powers. However, Article 209 only outlines the powers of the Council for specific purposes, and none of them involve initiating or continuing proceedings against a judge after retirement.
It’s essential to note that on January 23, a larger bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, reserved its judgment on Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui’s petition challenging the termination of his service due to misconduct. The court had requested written formulations from all parties involved, questioning whether the Supreme Judicial Council conducted a lawful inquiry and, if not, what the consequences would be.