The Supreme Court (SC) has underscored that a judge’s integrity encompasses far more than merely avoiding corruption allegations. It emphasized that judicial officers must maintain an unblemished character, exemplary conduct, and a respected standing in society.
A three-member bench, led by Justice Shahid Waheed and including Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, delivered a detailed judgment regarding the dismissal of former Additional District and Sessions Judge Afzal Zahid, who served in tehsil Mailsi, Punjab. Justice Waheed authored the judgment.
The court stated that the benchmark for a judge is not just innocence but being completely above suspicion. It held that a judge’s integrity is indivisible—either fully intact or absent. The judiciary’s authority rests on public trust rather than force, and once that trust is compromised, the judge cannot remain in office.
In a significant development, the court reviewed appeals filed on May 13, 2026, concerning the dismissal of Afzal Zahid. The judgment stressed that preserving a judge whose credibility and reputation have been sullied undermines judicial ethics and public confidence.
Notably, the court clarified that a judge’s integrity is not only compromised by proven corruption; a damaged reputation alone can tarnish the judiciary’s dignity. It observed that people approach courts not merely to contest laws but to hear the voice of conscience embodied by the judge. If that conscience is questioned, the entire legal system’s legitimacy is jeopardized.
The judiciary’s strength, the court added, derives from moral authority and public credibility rather than military or coercive power. It condemned the practice of granting compulsory retirement with benefits to judges of questionable reputation, arguing that it sends a message that judicial integrity is negotiable and thus mocks the law.
The judgment likened the removal of corrupt or disreputable judges to excising a “cancerous tumour” from the judicial body, initiating its healing process. It drew extensively on Islamic teachings, including Quranic injunctions, Hadith, and jurisprudence, emphasizing that the judicial office is a sacred trust and an act of worship.
Specifically, the court cited Surah An-Nisa (verse 58), which commands the return of trusts to their rightful owners and the dispensation of justice. It also referenced a Hadith distinguishing judges destined for Paradise—those who recognize truth and decide accordingly—from those destined for Hell, who rule unjustly or ignorantly.
The court emphasized that alongside knowledge, piety and integrity are essential criteria. Invoking Islamic jurists like Imam al-Mawardi and Ibn Qudamah, it held that any public doubt about a judge’s character mandates immediate removal. Retaining a judge lacking integrity breaches trust not only with society but also with God and the Muslim community.
Furthermore, the court asserted that the judiciary must uphold both actual and perceived integrity. Multiple complaints of corruption against the former judge led to supervision by the Lahore High Court. Quarterly reports revealed his reputation was compromised. Although the departmental inquiry did not conclusively prove corruption, the competent authority dismissed him based on his questionable integrity and poor reputation.
On appeal, the Service Tribunal converted this dismissal into compulsory retirement. Subsequently, the Lahore High Court, through its Registrar, filed an appeal against this decision, while the judge sought reinstatement and removal of adverse remarks through his own appeal.
