Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 2359 2021 SLD 2359 2021 PLD 752
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 156-K of 2020, decided on 16th March, 2021, Date of hearing: 16th March, 2021. (Against the order dated 14.09.2019 passed by learned Single Bench of High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. S-162 of 2019).
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE, SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Rasheed A. Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner along with Petitioner. Saulat Rizvi, Additional Advocate General, Sindh for
Respondent.

AIJAZ AHMED TUNIO

VS

THE STATE

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 202,203

Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 202 203---Judge/judicial officer of subordinate judiciary---Adverse remarks/strictures passed by the High Court on the judicial side---Propriety---High Court, under its judicial authority, should avoid passing strictures against a judicial officer of the District Judiciary, and any action if at all warranted must be done in accordance with law, namely by exercising the supervisory control vested in the High Court. High Court must, when arriving at a contrary conclusion in a matter before it from the subordinate judiciary, tread with caution when commenting on the ability, competence, integrity, and behavior of the judge and, therefore, refrain from passing strictures. The High Court, no matter how unhappy with the quality of the , should restrain itself from passing a personal remark against the judicial capabilities of a judge of the subordinate judiciary. Instead, the High Court was to exercise supervisory control over the district judiciary in accordance with Article 202 and Article 203 of the Constitution. The relevant service laws empowered the competent authority to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against a Judicial Officer. Therefore, the High Court, under its judicial authority, should avoid passing strictures against a judicial officer of the District Judiciary, and any action if at all warranted must be done in accordance with law, namely by exercising the supervisory control vested in the High Court. Miss Nusrat Yasmin v. Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar PLD 2019 SC 719; V.K. Jain v. High Court of Delhi through Registrar General and others (2008) 17 SCC 538; Awani Kumar Upadhyay v. The Honble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others AIR 2013 SC 2189; Amar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and another AIR 2012 SC 1995; Muhammad Mansha v. The State PLD 1996 SC 229 and Attorney-General v. B.B.C. ((1981) A.C. 303, 313) ref. High Court directed that the judicial record of the order passed by judge of the subordinate judiciary shall be examined by the Member Inspection Team (MIT) without being influenced by any observation made against the said judge by the High Court in the impugned . Petition…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492