- Proceedings touch upon broader constitutional principles, including scope of Article 191-A of Constitution
- Additional Registrar submits written reply, requesting for withdrawal of the show-cause notice
ISLAMABAD: A two-member bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday reserved verdict in the case of contempt of court by the additional registrar.
A two-member bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Abbasi, heard the contempt of court case and reserved the verdict after hearing multiple arguments.
During proceedings, Justice Shah observed, “Prima facie, the judges’ committee disregarded a judicial order. While contempt proceedings could be initiated, we will not issue a notice in this case.”
The proceedings touched upon broader constitutional principles, including the scope of Article 191-A of the Constitution, which governs the judiciary’s role and autonomy.
Advocate Hamid Khan who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, assisted the bench in the matter and presented his arguments.
Earlier, in response to the contempt of court notice regarding the rescheduling of the case related to powers of bench, Supreme Court Additional Registrar Nazar Abbas submitted his reply to the show-cause notice.
In his response, Additional Registrar Nazar Abbas requested the withdrawal of the show-cause notice, asserting that he did not defy any judicial orders. He stated that he had submitted a note regarding the matter of forming a bench based on the judicial order to the Practice and Procedure Committee.
Hamid Khan, appointed as amicus curiae by the apex court, argued that the committee’s actions were not only procedurally flawed but also inconsistent with constitutional safeguards.
“The Constitution does not permit some judges to have more powers than others. Such practices undermine the spirit of equality and judicial independence,” he asserted.
Justice Shah remarked that the question of whether the Chief Justice of Pakistan or a committee has the exclusive authority to form a full court remains pivotal.
He added that if the committee disregarded a judicial order, the issue might warrant referral to a full court for adjudication.
Justice Aqeel Abbasi noted potential confusion surrounding the judges’ committee’s jurisdiction and procedural limits.
He emphasized the need to address ambiguities in the Supreme Court Rules of 1980, which define the framework for forming judicial benches.
Hamid Khan further contended that the committee’s retraction of the case contravened constitutional procedures, highlighting that any such decision should align with Article 191-A.
However, he acknowledged that the committee might have the administrative authority to reassign cases in certain circumstances.
The court also heard arguments from Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, who emphasized the need for judicial restraint.
He suggested that procedural missteps, if any, should be resolved without undermining the judiciary’s institutional integrity.
Justice Shah drew attention to a related precedent involving former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, where a similar reassignment of cases raised questions about judicial autonomy.
“If a judicial order can be overridden by an administrative committee, it sets a dangerous precedent for judicial independence,” he remarked.
The attorney general recommended referring the matter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan for a final decision on whether a full court is necessary.
He argued that contempt proceedings were unwarranted in this case and that the judges’ committee acted within its administrative remit.
