The Supreme Court on Friday invalidated critical observations made by Sindh High Court against an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) judge, underscoring the importance of a comprehensive inquiry and prudence before issuing critical pronouncements against lower court judges. The highest court affirmed that everyone makes errors, including judges, and malicious purpose must be substantiated before reaching such serious inferences.

A three-judge panel led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar delivered a 12-page ruling. The tribunal maintained that severe judicial pronouncements, particularly when founded solely on spoken accusations, are inappropriate and can damage a judge”s standing and erode public trust in the judicial system.

The Supreme Court rejected the strong comments made by High Court judges about the junior judge but did not restore the appellant’s administrative role, as a replacement had already been selected.

The court emphasized that judicial pronouncements documented in rulings or disseminated in the press become permanent public records, potentially impacting a judge’s career. It directed that reciprocal respect and decorum must be maintained within the legal system and recommended that concerns or claims should be communicated through private reports to the Chief Justice of the respective High Court instead of public rebuke.

Justice Mazhar stated in the judgment that courts should guide and counsel junior judges instead of censuring them. Refusing the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself was a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to due process.

The matter began when Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) Karachi Judge Zakir Hussain appealed to the Supreme Court against the Sindh High Court”s decision and observations. The High Court had earlier annulled two of his orders-one concerning judicial custody instead of police custody for a defendant, and the other regarding the establishment of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT). The High Court also questioned the presence of the defendant’s parent in the judge’s office, seeing it as indication of bad faith.

Consequently, the High Court suggested the revocation of administrative authority from Judge Zakir Hussain. Contesting these measures, the judge lodged a request with the Supreme Court, which has now found in his favor by setting aside the reprimands, strengthening the tenet of fairness, and promoting circumspection in the handling of judicial officials.