Judicial Service Commission (JSC) on Monday, decided to form a committee to investigate the two cases against Supreme Court Judge Abdulla Didi.
JSC previously decided to suspend Judge Didi as it was investigating the cases against him. However, the top court issued a stay order to delay his suspension and to prevent further measures from being taken against him.
Nevertheless, the Commission decided to sustain Judge Didi's suspension despite the apex court's order.
The Commission originally issued the order to suspend Judge Didi on the basis that Maldives Police Service informed the commission of an ongoing investigating regarding the Supreme Court judge.
JSC stated Monday that it is investigating the matter to determine whether there were disciplinary issues surrounding Judge Didi's conduct, as well as continuing to formally attend Supreme Court sessions thereby violating his suspension.
Although a committee including all members of the JSC was formed in order to probe the two cases, three members of the Commission withdrew from the investigation.
According to JSC, the three members that withdrew from the investigation were JSC President and Supreme Court Judge Abdulla Areef, the Commission's legal community representative Latheefa Gasim and parliament's citizen representative Abdul Hannan Ahmed.
JSC further revealed that Judge Didi was summoned to the Commission on Monday to issue his statement in relation to the two cases.
As a result of the top courts' stay order, Judge Didi continues to officially serve at his position.
While JSC is investigating the two cases against the Justice, the apex court issued another order voiding all JSC verdicts in violation of the court's previously issued stay order.
However, JSC announced its rejection of the Supreme Court order issued upon Judge Didi submitting a constitutional case disputing his suspension.
During the reception held on Monday, the Commission announced that it would be represented by the Assistant Director of JSC in court.
By unanimous decision, JSC decided to claim that the Supreme Court had no grounds to investigate the matter.