Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi of the Supreme Court on Monday withdrew his earlier objection to a three-judge bench hearing his petition that challenged the issuance of a show-cause notice to him over alleged misconduct.
Makhdoom Ali Khan, the counsel for Justice Naqvi, told the apex court that the judge had not raised any objection to the jurisdiction or composition of the bench rather its constitution since it was not properly formed by a committee of three senior judges that constitutes benches, and he would prefer to advance his arguments purely on merit.
During the hearing, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, a member of the three-judge bench, had wondered how the present bench could proceed with the matter when it was no properly constituted.
Headed by Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, the SC bench had taken up a set of petitions challenging the issuance of show-cause notice to Justice Naqvi who is facing complaints of misconduct before the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
The counsel, however, withdrew the stand regarding objection to the constitution of the bench, saying the court should not make the complainants as party in the present case since their role as informers had ended after the filing of complaints in the SJC against the judge.
The counsel contended that the information forwarded by the complainants before the council was entirely speculative in nature and, therefore, the notice should be withdrawn. He said the proceedings before the SJC were not being done on the instance of a reference by the president as earlier done in the case of former chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry or Justice Qazi Faez Isa, the incumbent CJP. The counsel said the information before the SJC could come from a newspaper article and television programmes.
“Will the court then require all the individuals to join the case as parties,” the counsel wondered, adding that the complainants in the present case did not have any locus standi to have any right in the matter.
The counsel said no notice by the council could be issued without conducting first proper factual inquiry.
The bench, however, postponed further proceedings till Tuesday to determine whether the court should also issue notices to the complainants.
