2024 SCMR 880 SUPREME-JUDICIAL-COUNCIL

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

VS arts. 209(5)(b) & 209(6)---Code of Conduct for Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, arts. II, III, IV & VI---Complaints filed before the Supreme Judicial Council ("SJC") against a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, who resigned during pendency of the proceedings before the SJC---Misconduct---Violation of the Code of Conduct for Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts---Removal from the office of Judge---Purchase of properties and construction raised thereon without having sufficient declared income/money in income tax returns/wealth statement---Purchase of property at half its market price to deprive minor co-owners of their share in the property---Misuse of office to exercise influence over government officials---Grant of undue favours to a businessman to buy properties from him at heavily discounted prices---Judge in question ('the accused') bought a property knowing that it was co-owned by children, and that without a Guardian Court granting permission to sell it he could not have bought it---accused did not produce any notice published in any newspaper, which prudent buyers do by inviting public objections by publishing the same in prominent newspapers---accused also elected not to testify, and by not doing so an adverse presumption could be drawn against him---accused did not disclose his tax filings nor came forward to testify; he also did not disclose how much he had earned over the years and/or the income tax paid thereon---It was also not stated when he started filing tax returns and paying income tax---Since the accused did not make the requisite disclosure nor testified the SJC was not in a position to determine whether or not he had sufficient income tax paid/declared money to justify the purchase of the properties bought by him---a property developer through his company, paid Rupees fifty million to the seller as portion of the sale consideration for a property bought by the accused---a judge accepting such largesse from a property developer, who claimed that he hardly knew the accused-Judge, raised very serious questions of propriety---Since no viable explanation for paying the said fifty million rupees was forthcoming the SJC was left to assume that such incomprehensible generosity to a Judge was with the expectation that it would be handsomely recompensed---Furthermore, documents on record established that the accused applied for and was allotted four properties by the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation ('the Foundation') and the Supreme Court Employees Cooperative Housing Society---Within a period of less than two years after being administered oath as a Judge of the Supreme Court, the accused got four properties, while serving as a Judge of the Supreme Court---Organizations from whom he got the four propertips were set up for providing housing to its members---accused did not explain why he obtained four properties, surely he could not reside in all of them---Judge of the Supreme Court should not want to deprive others, which would be the result of actions of the accused---Two sons of the accused were given properties at heavily discounted prices in projects owned by a property developer---Said property dealer admitted in his testimony that each of the sons was given the properties of which they only paid ten percent of their price; that he had not given similar allotment to any other judge or his children; and that he had also sent £ 5,000 to the daughter of the accused in a foreign country---accused violated his oath of office which required him to abide by the Code of Conduct for Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts ('the Code of Conduct') by violating a number of the provisions of the Code of Conduct---accused could not be said to be untouched by greed, and so violated article-II of the Code of Conduct---It also cannot be stated that he was above reproach, and so had violated article-III of the Code of Conduct---Conduct of accused was also not free from impropriety expected of a Judge in his official and private affairs, and to such extent he also violated article-III of the Code of Conduct---It is clear that actions of accused were swayed by consideration of personal advantage, and so he violated article-IV of the Code of Conduct---He knowingly deprived minors of their valuable property, and so violated article-VI of the Code of Conduct---By receiving substantial unexplained gifts, the accused violated article-VI of the Code of Conduct; the gifts included receiving fifty million rupees, his sons receiving two commercial plots and two residential plots at a nominal price and his daughter receiving UK pounds £5,000---accused was guilty of misconduct and should have been removed from the office of Judge---Number of instances of misconduct committed by the accused had damaged the reputation of the judiciary---SJC directed that as the accused should have been removed for having committed serious misconduct, the honorific 'Justice' or 'Judge' should not henceforth be used with the name of the accused.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR