Justice Mandokhail says Saqib Nisar failed to fulfil obligation by not referring complaints to SJC
News Desk

ISLAMABAD: In his additional note to a recent judgement, a Supreme Court judge, Jamal Khan Mandokhail, has severely criticized a former chief justice of Pakistan, Mian Saqib Nisar. Justice Mandokhail has noted that CJ Nisar failed to fulfil his constitution, moral and ethical obligation as the country’s top judge as he did not refer the misconduct complaints filed against him to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) during his term as the chief justice.
“[A] complaint was filed by private appellants against the former HCJ (Saqib Nisar), but he sat upon the same and did not refer the matter to the council [SJC} by recusing himself, rather held the Council hostage by not convening a meeting,” Justice Mandokhail stated in his 17-page additional note.
The additional note is part of the detailed judgement issued by a five-member bench that on February 21 ruled that the SCJ proceedings once initiated against a judge did not stop upon the retirement or resignation of the judge. The five-member bench—including Justice Mandokhail—had issued this order while hearing an intra-court appeal filed by the government against a June 27, 2023 verdict of an SC division bench which had ruled that misconduct proceedings could not be initiated against judges who have retired or resigned.
In his additional note which was unveiled along with the detailed verdict on Friday, Justice Mandokhail noted that it was not only the former CJ’s constitutional obligation, but was also his moral and ethical responsibility to refer the matter to the council. “[CJ Nisar should have] asked a judge of the Supreme Court who was next in seniority [to] him to become a member [of the council], with further request to the council to proceed against him accordingly.”
According to Justice Mandokhail, Justice Nisar as the CJ was burdened with more responsibility to maintain a high moral and ethical standard by placing himself before the council for his accountability. “But he failed to do what was expected from him,” he added. He noted that failure on part of Justice Nisar to refer his matter to the council not only resulted in undermining the constitutional provisions, but also amounted to preventing the SJC from performing its constitutional function.
“It is a fact that during his tenure, under his chairmanship, the council conducted proceedings against some other judges, but withholding the complaint filed against him, is a violation of the principle of equality regarding accountability amongst the judges.” He said it was equally the responsibility of other SJC members to have had inquired about pendency of references or complaints against judges of the Supreme Court or high courts