Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui of the Islamabad High Court has been a polarising figure over the course of his career, especially in recent years. His actions, judgments and precedents have been hailed on both extremes of the political spectrum in Pakistan, albeit never jointly. Justice Siddiqui’s actions are almost always either hailed completely by the conservative base as reflections of true religiosity and patriotism, or in other cases, as shining examples of anti-establishment liberal thinking.
Just yesterday, the country’s advocates of liberalism and anti-establishment politics, including Asma Jehangir, Jibran Nasir and their ilk toed his line after he made a harsh rebuke of Chief of Army Staff Qamar Javed Bajwa for strong-arming Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi into concluding the Faizabad sit-in through negotiations, and acting as a mediator in the affair rather than following the Interior Minister’s orders to end the sit-in. However, he has been giving a series of socially conservative judgments as well; to such an extent, some religious-minded pressure groups even put him up on their posters.
Given his hard-to-read leanings, Pakistan Today looks into all the times the good Justice has made decisions that have alienated or delighted different parts of the political spectrum.
Online Blasphemy Case: I will call the PM to court if I have to
During a follow-up hearing to the IHC’s earlier verdict, wherein it had ordered a crackdown on those circulating blasphemous content on social media, Justice Siddiqui proclaimed that the matter was one of grave seriousness and that if it came to it, he would go ahead and summon the PM if he had to.
What makes the case all the more ideologically significant is that the petition against online blasphemy was filed by Salman Shahid, son-in-law of Lal Masjid’s Maulana Abdul Aziz. As part of the case, Justice Siddiqui had checked all the boxes necessary to become the darling of conservatives nationwide. During the hearing, he also pulled an anti-Ahmadi move by declaring that “those who do not fulfill the criteria under the law to be a Muslim should not be made a part of the whole process.” He quoted from Islamic history and the Quran to legitimise his earlier ruling, placed the online blasphemers on the ECL and then, on November 17, he went on to say that he would call the PM into court if needed.
Banning Valentine’s Day: Love is not in the air
His decision to ban the celebration of Valentine’s day in the Federal Capital is one that Justice Siddiqui has stuck by since he made it back in February this year. For sure, there were many disappointed souls whose plans were shattered, and many others were perhaps relieved that they now had a valid excuse. Others ridiculed his stance, saying the court probably has more serious business to attend to, but as we saw from the bloggers case, the seriousness of a matter is the court’s prerogative and Justice Siddiqui seems to take these things fairly seriously. Enough to summon the PM seriously.
But perhaps more importantly, for all the ridicule, which even went international, Siddiqui had support to. In fact, the move probably gained him some significant admirers that today might just be among those calling him out for being ‘anti-national.’
Taseer Murder: How can Qadri decide who is a blasphemer?
For all that we may speculate over what he thinks or why he makes the decisions that he does, Justice Siddiqui seems to be nothing if not professional. Justice Siddiqui was part of the two-member IHC bench that had upheld the Anti Terror Court (ATC)’s death penalty for Mumtaz Qadri. Within the hearing, he also asked Qadri’s defence how his client was in a position to decided who is a blasphemer and who isn’t.
“If this state of affairs persists, tomorrow one can be end up being punished for not reciting religious verses or wearing green turbans,” he remarked in court.
SJC Case: Try me publicly or don’t try me at all
The Supreme Judicial Council had to stop their proceedings of misconduct against Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui until a final decision was taken regarding a petition the Justice had filed, one being heard by a larger bench.
The contents of the petition? Justice Siddiqui had demanded that the case being heard against him not be done under wraps but be held openly as part of the public record, and live on camera. The petition against him was filed by a retired CDA employee who claimed that Siddiqui was misusing CDA funds by having a pigeon cage constructed on top of his official residence.