Sacked IHC judge wants early hearing on his petition
National
April 29, 2021
ISLAMABAD: A sacked judge of the Islamabad High Court (IHC), Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, on Wednesday requested the Supreme Court to fix next month his petition challenging the notification of the president of Pakistan, terminating his service.
He filed an application in the apex court under XXXIII Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980 for early hearing of his petition. He submitted that he was going to retire on June 30, 2021, therefore, his instant petition may be fixed preferably on May 4, 2021 in the interest of justice. He submitted that since his removal from office, he said he like millions of other citizens has been guaranteed fundamental rights. It is a universally-recognized principle that justice delayed is justice denied, he contended.
KARACHI: As the controversy over the role of an aide to the prime minister in filing of a reference against a Supreme Court judge deepened, Adviser to the Prime Minister on Accountability and Interior Mirza Shahzad Akbar on Wednesday denied he had pressured former Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) director general Bashir A. Memon into filing the reference against Justice Qazi Faez Isa.
Law Minister Farogh Nasim came forward to lend support to Mr Akbar, asking why the former FIA head had not spoken out during the past several months. Also, Mr Akbar sent a legal notice to Mr Memon stating that his ‘libellous statements’ were ‘completely untrue’.
Sacked IHC judge wants early hearing on his petition thenews.com.pk - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from thenews.com.pk Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
In this file photo, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui addresses the Rawalpindi District Bar Association. DawnNewsTV/File
ISLAMABAD: Former judge of the Islamabad High Court Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui on Tuesday again requested the Supreme Court to adjudicate on his plea against the Oct 11, 2018 notification under which he was removed.
In a six-page application, the former judge also requested the apex court to suspend the notification.
The once outspoken judge was removed from the high judicial office on the recommendation of the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) under Article 209 of the Constitution for delivering a controversial speech on July 21, 2018 at the District Bar Association Rawalpindi, thus being guilty of misconduct.
The writer is a lawyer.
“Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.” Carl Jung
THERE is no ambiguity about the foundations of the 1973 Constitution: the Constitution is the supreme law and it can neither be suspended not even for a minute nor abrogated. Civilian democracy is the only form of constitutional governance; citizens’ fundamental rights have enforcement priority and any de facto domination or interference by the military establishment in our civilian democratic government is unconstitutional.
If such issues are constitutionally unambiguous then why is there an implied acceptance by the judiciary of the de facto domination or interference by the establishment in our civilian democracy (interference within political parties and in elections, one-sided accountability etc)? Also why is there judicial tolerance for repeated, grave violations of citizens’ fundamental rights by state officials (missing persons, se