The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea to halt the proceedings of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi. The three-member bench, led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and including Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Musarrat Hilali, heard Justice Naqvi’s petition. During the proceedings, the court denied the request to stay the SJC proceedings against Justice Naqvi and directed him to file an amended petition. The subsequent hearing of the case was adjourned indefinitely. Earlier on Monday, legal representatives of Justice Naqvi withdrew objections to the bench hearing their client’s petition against misconduct proceedings initiated by the SJC. The SJC had issued a show cause notice to Justice Naqvi on October 27 of the previous year, citing various complaints alleging bench manipulation and financial misconduct by the Supreme Court judge. Another show cause notice was served on November 22, demanding a detailed response from the judge regarding the allegations raised by multiple petitioners. In response, Justice Naqvi challenged the SJC proceedings and its notices in the apex court, leading to the formation of a three-member bench to address the matter. Initially, Justice Naqvi objected to the formation of this bench, as noted by SJC member Justice Ijazul Ahsan, who stated that it was not formed in consultation with a three-member committee established in accordance with the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. However, on Monday, Justice Naqvi’s lawyers, Makhdoom Ali Khan and Latif Khosa, expressed confidence in the bench and withdrew their objections. During the hearing, Justice Mandokhail commented on the prevalence of derogatory remarks about judges on social media and referred to an allegedly attributed statement from a judge’s daughter, highlighted as breaking news. He expressed concern about baseless complaints against judges, emphasising that judges lack the means to respond to such allegations. The court noted that Justice Naqvi had not named the individuals who filed complaints against him with the SJC as respondents in the case, a unique occurrence that requires examination. Makhdoom Ali Khan argued that once a complainant submits a grievance to the SJC, their role terminates. He contended that the council’s actions, termed administrative, can be halted by a Supreme Court bench, citing precedents. He further alleged that the SJC failed to meet legal requirements before issuing show cause notices to Naqvi, suggesting they were based on assumptions rather than facts. Justice Mandokhail questioned who would determine whether the show cause notices were based on facts or assumptions. The bench reserved its order on a petition by complainant Mian Dawood, seeking the removal of Justice Ijazul Ahsan from the SJC bench handling complaints against Justice Naqvi. Dawood, present in the courtroom, claimed that when he requested Justice Ahsan’s recusal, the SJC member refused to step down from hearing the complaints against Naqvi. Justice Mandokhail noted the principle that a judge facing objections should decide on their own recusal in judicial decisions.