While unanimously dismissing a corruption complaint against the puisne judge, Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Monday decided to proceed against Lahore-based lawyer Azhar Siddiqui for running a malicious campaign against the judge.
The SJC, however, has granted the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) affiliated lawyer a week to explain his actions.
"In view of the fact that the complaint was statedly tweeted by Mr M. Azhar Siddique, ASC, notice be issued to him calling for his explanation within seven days whether he tweeted, and if he had why should action in accordance with law not be taken against him or as recommended to be taken," the SJC maintained in its Opinion issued by the office of the Council's Secretary late on Monday.
The SJC met on Monday to consider the complaints against Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi.
In its Opinion, the SJC added that they should consider later whether they should proceed against the complainant, Amna Malik, for filing a false complaint.
"The question whether the complainant should be proceeded against for filing a false complaint will be considered later," the Opinion further stated, adding that the complainant had confessed that a false complaint against Justice Tariq should not have been filed.
'False accusation'
According to the SJC's Opinion on Justice Masood's case, complainant Amna Malik appeared before the council on Monday, and her statement was recorded. She was then questioned about the complaint she had lodged.
Justice Masood was notified to attend Monday's proceedings if he wanted to rebut the allegations against him. Justice Masood filed his response.
"The complainant was questioned and gave unsatisfactory answers and withheld information," stated the Opinion.
"The complainant (Amna Malik) conceded that her complaint was not justified in view of the documents seen by her."
In his response, Justice Masood stated that he has been publicly defamed. Now that the complainant has conceded that the allegations were factually incorrect, he requested the Council to take action against Amna Malik and against Azhar Siddique, who had tweeted the complaint.
Justice Masood went on to request the SJC that since he has been publicly defamed, he should be publicly exonerated as well and that the order passed today, as well as the examination of the complainant and answers to questions, be disclosed and that he does not claim any confidentiality regarding it or in respect of his written response.
Intriguingly, during the proceedings, the complainant stated that her complaint should not have been filed as the allegations were not correct.
"There is no substance in the complaint, and we are of the opinion that it was filed maliciously to defame Justice Sardar Tariq Masood."
"The complaint is dismissed," the SJC noted in its Opinion.
Later, in interviews with the media after the hearing, Amna Malik stated that she had filed her complaint based on certain documents that had been handed to her.
She asserted that she had nothing personal against Justice Masood and believed all judges should be held equally accountable under the law.
Regarding Justice Masood's request to make the proceedings public, the SJC expressed in the Opinion that Clause 13 of the Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Enquiry 2005 stipulates that council proceedings shall be conducted in camera and shall not be open to the public.
"However, Clause 13(3) of the Procedure states that the proceedings, if so directed by the Council, can be reported."
Subsequently, the SJC expressed the Opinion that in light of Justice Masood's request, who wants to be exonerated publicly, "the stated proceedings be reported by the Secretary of the Council and uploaded on the Supreme Court's website."
Sources have said that the council is expected to reconvene at 3pm on Tuesday, November 21, to consider the ten complaints against Justice Naqvi.
Justice Naqvi's case and defence
Justice Naqvi is facing no less than ten complaints against him. The SJC, at its last meeting, issued him a notice to reply to these allegations.
Justice Naqvi, however, had issued a preliminary reply - clarifying categorically that it was not a response - raising several objections and presenting conditions to file a formal response.
Earlier on Monday, Justice Naqvi also challenged the SJC proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Under the Practice and Procedure Act, a three-member committee, led by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa and comprising Justice Sardar Tariq Masood and Justice Ijazul Ahsan, shall determine whether Justice Naqvi's petition falls within the purview of Article 184(3).
A unanimous or a majority decision by the three-member committee shall prevail.
Where the matter becomes complicated is that Justice Naqvi, in his preliminary reply, had objected to SJC members Chief Justice Isa and Justice Masood, accusing them of bias. It is pertinent to note that Chief Justice Isa and Justice Masood are also a part of the Supreme Judicial Council.
Meanwhile, Justice Naqvi has challenged the SJC proceedings. For this purpose, he has engaged a high-profile legal team comprising the likes of Khawaja Haris, Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sardar Latif Khosa and Barrister Ali Zafar.
Advocates Haris and Khan are expected to argue the legal aspects of his petition. Barrister Ali Zafar and Sardar Latif Khosa are expected to gain support from the legal fraternity in favour of Justice Naqvi.
A majority of lawyers, however, are unlikely to support Justice Naqvi's verdict wherein he declares the constitution of special courts, established to try former military ruler Pervez Musharraf in the high treason case, as unconstitutional.
Moreover, the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), the lawyer's apex body in the country, is among the complainants against Justice Naqvi in the SJC.