Judges who lose public trust should be removed: SC

• Rules judicial integrity cannot be compromised
• Restores removal penalty for judicial officer, overturning tribunal’s decision to grant compulsory retirement

ISLAMABAD: Establishing ethical standards for members of the judiciary, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that removal from service became justified when a judge’s conduct compromised his or her integrity, undermined the moral authority of the institution and eroded public confidence in the judiciary.

“The moment public confidence in the integrity of a judicial officer is fractured, the fracture runs through the entire structure of the rule of law, undermining the integrity of the judicial institution itself,” emphasised Justice Shahid Wa­­heed, who headed a three-judge bench also comprising Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui.

The bench, which had taken up a set of appeals revolving around the question of preserving the integrity of the judicial institution, observed that the robe of a judge was not stained only by proven corruption; it was “equally darkened by a sustained loss of credibility”.

The appeals were filed by the Lahore High Court (LHC) registrar and an additional district and sessions judge who had served in Mailsi, Vehari district.

The appeals challenged the Jan 17, 2025, ruling of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore, which had modified the penalty imposed on the judicial officer from removal from service to compulsory retirement, holding that the evidence of corruption was insufficient.

However, the tribunal upheld the charge relating to a tarnished reputation and considering the officer’s length of service, reduced the penalty from removal to compulsory retirement.

In his appeal, the judicial officer soug­­ht complete reinstatement and the expu­ngement of adverse remarks against him.

The LHC registrar, meanwhile, sought a harsher punishment by challenging the tribunal’s ruling before the SC.

‘Strangled his judicial career’

Authored by Justice Waheed, the judgement noted that the court was confronted with the question: what punishment was appropriate for imposing on a judicial officer whose reputation had been found to be tarnished. It also had to determine whether upon the charges being proved, he should be removed from judicial service or compulsorily retired.

Justice Waheed explained that the principle to be applied was that the penalty must be proportionate to “mischief”.

However, in the present case, the “mischief was the loss of public confidence”, the judgement observed, adding that the judicial officer, by compromising his impartiality, had not only “lost public confidence” but had also “strangled his judicial career”.

“The continuation of such a judicial officer in office had become incompatible with the interests of the institution,” it noted.

Justice Waheed explained that compulsory retirement might, in appropriate circumstances, be imposed where the aim was to weed out deadwood or where retention was no longer administratively feasible.

“In any case, compulsory retirement cannot be imposed on a judge of poor reputation, as allowing him to retire

with benefits would suggest that reputation is negotiable, which would defeat the very purpose of the penalty,” Justice Waheed noted.

“As a result, removal from service becomes justified when the conduct affects the integrity of a judge [as well as] the institution’s morality and damages public confidence.”

The verdict stated that the tribunal had seemingly overlooked the distinction that when an ill-reputed or corrupt judge was removed, the judicial institution began to heal because a specific tumour had been excised.

“Under these circumstances, the punishment of removal from service as imposed by the competent authority of the LHC was proportionate to the guilt established,” it noted.

“Thus, the tribunal erred in law by modifying the penalty of removal from service,” the verdict added.

It judgement noted that the tribunal’s reasoning was “unsound and makes out a case of misplaced sympathy”, adding that the position of a judge could not be equated with that of a civil servant, as the standard for a judge was not only being “not guilty” but being “beyond reproach”.

Drawing on Islamic principles, the judgement stated that a judge who lost legal uprightness through conduct that caused public doubt must be removed.

“Keeping a corrupt or unfit official is essentially equivalent to appointing one: both constitute a betrayal of the divine trust associated with authority,” the ju­­dgement noted, citing classical jurists and the principle of fitness for public office.

Published in Dawn, June 20th, 2026