Daily Times

The Supreme Court of Pakistan declared on Wednesday that if proceedings have already been initiated by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against a judge, the same shall not abate upon the judge’s resignation or retirement.

This decision has potential implications for former Supreme Court judge, Justice (retd) Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, who resigned last month while facing charges of misconduct.

Justice Naqvi stepped down from his position, citing an untenable situation that made it impossible for him to continue in his role as a judge of the Supreme Court. The resignation, however, does not appear to bring an end to the allegations against him, as the Supreme Court clarified that ongoing proceedings before the SJC will continue regardless of his resignation or retirement.

The retired justice is currently embroiled in misconduct charges, and the SJC has been conducting proceedings to address the allegations. The apex court’s decision to not allow the abatement of such proceedings is likely to keep the legal challenges alive for Naqvi. A day before tendering his resignation, Naqvi had sought relief from the Supreme Court to halt the ongoing misconduct proceedings against him at the SJC. However, the apex court turned down his plea, allowing the SJC to proceed with its investigations.

Ten complaints, accusing Justice (retd) Naqvi of misconduct, were reportedly pending before the SJC.

In December, Justice (retd) Naqvi expressed his dissatisfaction with the treatment he received from the SJC in a letter addressed to Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa and all Supreme Court judges. He described the SJC’s actions as “nothing short of disgraceful.”

The Supreme Court’s written order on the matter, issued by a larger bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan, stated, “It is the prerogative of the SJC to proceed with the matter accordingly.” The order was passed with a majority of four justices in favour, with one justice, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, dissenting on the points of limitation and merits.

The ruling emphasised the autonomy of the SJC in handling proceedings against judges and underscored the principle that resigning from the position did not absolve a judge from ongoing disciplinary inquiries initiated by the judicial council.