How would you see any convincing evidence when you do not find out but argue without even knowing the facts?
I Read your post very carefully. 
Bhai meray, I believe you are educated and educated person makes judgmental comments after knowing the facts and understanding that too. You want to have opinion on corruption of Ifti but do not know what happened in SC or anything about SC judgment, neither it seem you care, still you want to argue on your beliefs of lies (spread by media), is that not ridiculous?
Hence before making any comments and judgments, please know the facts: Let me put the facts here, but if you do not believe me, no problem, you can certainly find that out yourself, no objection. To get your facts right, instead of going on comments by some corrupt journalists, check the news and check what came out of court. My request with you is that to please answer my last post after knowing the facts, because apart of many things in your post are irrelevant, but main thing is that you tried to answer without knowing the facts, and that means answer was unsynchronized too (like, someone asks that ‘where is Islamabad’ and answer comes that ‘Islamabad is city’).
So after reading the facts give the answer:
If executive considers that a judge or CJ is corrupt, than should executives send reference to SJC and get it investigation by SJC consisting of number of Supreme Court and High Court judges to find out if particular judge or CJ is really corrupt OR Executives should give judge or CJ a hard kick on his butt and send them packing out of their post?
Facts: (if you do not agree with the fact than do your own research but please do not comment without knowing the fact or mention things that are irrelevant to what we are discussing:
SJC (Supreme Judicial Council) is different from SC (Supreme Court). SJC consists of Supreme Court and High Court judges (including Chief justices). Please do not confuse SJC with SC, as they are different.
On 9th of March President sent reference against CJ to SJC (Not SC but SJC).
Since SJC is headed by CJ of Pakistan, ex-CJ Ifti would have headed SJC and could have influenced SJC too.
One of the allegations in reference was that Ifti is corrupt and interferes in the functioning of other bodies, so for SJC to work independently against CJ reference, CJ was suspended so that he does not interferes with SJC functioning.
Ideally SJC should have done the investigations without interference from anyone, and it was duty of all judges, including judges of SC to cooperate and facilitated SJC investigations.
What happened? Ex CJ and his corrupt lawyers (including Atizaz Ahsan) started beating the bush, appealed to SC on constituent of SJC, competence of judges in SJC, mishandling of CJ, suspension of CJ, and making lot of irrelevant arguments regarding reference and intentions behind reference. Throughout their appeal, they started politicizing the reference on roads, while avoiding any argument on reference and various allegations in the reference on ex-CJ Ifti. All this held the functioning of SJC on investigation the reference.
Until mid of May, corrupt ex-CJ and his corrupt lawyers managed to keep SJC from not investigating the reference on one pretext or another. In mid May, after corrupt politicians behind ex-CJ managed to fool lot of people, divided Pakistan, created mayhem in the country (especially after 12th May), and turned issue of CJ from simple reference case into political issue, ex-CJ and his lawyers managed to get a stay on SJC investigation duty on ex-CJ reference. This is when it happened.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/16/top2.htm](http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/16/top2.htm)
**Now instead of reference, SJC and their duty became target. Judges start arguing that if SJC has any right to investigate judges or not. **
That means to make judges above all laws, and that if they do corruption or whatever than it is fine, as there is no body that can investigate them and government cannot do anything. It means that now CJ is son-in-law (daamaad) of government and thus King of Pakistan above all Laws and morality, and Pakistan his Jagir, where his sons and daughters should do whatever they like too. Media did all to get the situation to this level.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/17/top4.htm](http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/17/top4.htm)
http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/22/top1.htm](http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/22/top1.htm)
http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/24/top2.htm](http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/24/top2.htm)
http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/25/top1.htm](http://www.dawn.com/2007/05/25/top1.htm)
http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/05/top2.htm](http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/05/top2.htm)
From all above, it is evident that judges were certain that CJ investigation would prove that he was corrupt and he would get sack, thus all effort of corrupt ex-CJ and his corrupt lawyers was to stop reference getting investigated and undermine functioning and purpose of SJC.
Thus, SC started a situation where they started pushing the government to wall, such that if government wants to do something, they have to act and take extra constitutional measures (what happened on 3rd Nov) or keep quite (like tolerating corrupt CJ).
Then by June, corrupt ex-CJ and his corrupt Lawyer Atitaz Ahsan started new argument regarding sending CJ on forced leave:
http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/22/top2.htm](http://www.dawn.com/2007/06/22/top2.htm)
In the end, on 21st July, Supreme Court declared that Iftikhar forced leave was illegal, and stopped SJC to investigate corrupt ex-CJ Iftikhar and thus made the reference invalid.
This means that ex-CJ is not cleared of allegations but it means that all allegations were left as it is and investigation on those allegations are stopped, as desired by corrupt Iftikhar and his corrupt lawyers including Atizaz Ahsan. Result is that, corruption and pigheadedness won and honesty lost.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/21/top1.htm](http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/21/top1.htm)
Actually, Judge Ramday accepted the fact that since 1973, it was first time that executives invoked reference against judge, else in past executives used to kick judges at will unconstitutionally.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/04/top2.htm](http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/04/top2.htm)
Well, that is what maybe people in Pakistan like, and that is why in the end same happened to corrupt judges on 3rd Nov. What Pakistanis showed during disgraced ex-CJ case that what Pakistanis want is that executives instead of sending reference and using constitutional means to investigate integrity and honesty of judge, executives should kick these unworthy corrupt judges or even honest judges out of office at will. In the end Musharraf realized that ‘latoo kay bhoot batoo say nahie manta’ … so he gave them a good kick
Believe me, if instead of running away from investigation this corrupt CJ had contested the allegations in SJC and would have come through, I would have given him all respect, but this disgraced corrupt CJ was what allegations says and thus need no sympathy or respect.
Ramday rigthly said:
http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/04/top2.htm](http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/04/top2.htm)
‘Many judges dismissed arbitrarily’
By Nasir Iqbal
ISLAMABAD, July 3: Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday on Tuesday observed that it was for the first time since 1973 that the executive had invoked the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), instead of butchering unwanted judges arbitrarily.
“Eyebrows are raised when judges are removed by the executive not in accordance with the law,” said Justice Ramday, who is heading a 13-member larger bench hearing a petition filed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry challenging the presidential reference against him, composition of the SJC and its competence to try the CJ.
“When nobody felt using Article 209 what to talk of misusing it.”
In contrast to the Monday’s proceedings when the 13 judges were visibly disturbed after finding scandalous material against some of the judges in the presidential reference, Tuesday’s proceedings went smoothly.
Justice Ramday recalled how former chief justices Mohammad Yaqoob Ali, Anwarul Haq and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, also mentioning the name of the incumbent CJ, had been removed unceremoniously by the executive and said that the number of superior court judges removed arbitrarily was countless.
“In a country like ours, there is no need to use Article 209,” Justice Mohammad Nawaz Abbasi quipped.
The issue surfaced when federal government’s counsel Malik Mohammad Qayyum argued that Article 209 was as applicable to the CJ as to other judges and that this provision ensured the independence of the judiciary.
“Our history is replete with incidents of removing judges” which, he said, he was not proud of. “But we should follow the Constitution,” he said, recalling that 50 impeachments had taken place in the US, of which 10 were against judges.
Malik Qayyum said he still believed that the CJ should not be made non-functional. At this, Justice Ramday observed that the counsel was saying that he was still the CJ, but the flag had been removed from his vehicle as well as the residence while his chambers had been sealed.
Only Law Minister Wasi Zafar could offer an explanation in this regard, Malik Qayyum said. He argued that there was no separate provision for the appointment, remuneration, retirement or resignation for the CJ, and therefore, no difference could be made between other judges and the CJ.
“The SJC is competent to decide incapacity or misconduct of the CJ like other judges and there is no provision for special forum for trial of the CJ in the Constitution. All members of the SJC are replaceable and even CJ, who heads it, can be replaced by the acting chief justice,” Malik Qayyum argued.
He said if it was declared that the SJC was not a proper forum to try the CJ then it would also deny all available protection to judges under Article 209 and the CJ would be left at the mercy the executive.
On the formation of opinion, he said the president always acted on the advice of the prime minister who formed opinion to forward the reference, though the president had the power to send the advice back to the premier for reconsideration.
When Malik Qayyum referred to a chapter in the Constitution on the establishment of the Federal Sharia Court (FSC), Justice Ramday deplored that the chapter had been introduced by the martial law administrator and not by the lawmakers or the founding fathers with intent to dump unwanted judges.
“You are right but the provision was adopted by a sovereign parliament,” Malik Qayyum argued.
But this was not part of the original scheme, Justice Nasirul Mulk observed. He was supported by Justice Faqir Khokhar who said in a lighter vein that it was an ‘adopted baby’. Justice M. Javed Buttar, however, said the chapter did not show any legislative intent.
Justice Ramday referred to what had happened to judges like justice Mehbub, justice Aftab, justice Nasir Aslam Zahid and justice Khalilur Rehman and observed that the FSC was made not for the glory of religion but to be used as a dumping ground.