ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s contempt proceedings against Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbasi over a jurisdictional issue have turned into a discussion on the relative importance of administrative and judicial rulings.
A two-member regular bench made up of Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi took up the contempt case on Tuesday. They questioned why a case pertaining to the regular benches’ jurisdiction was moved to the constitutional bench.
The bench named senior attorneys Munir A. Malik and Hamid Khan as amici curiae and asked the attorney general for advice on the consequences of disobeying a court order.
The problem is that some matters that were supposed to be considered by the constitutional bench were “mistakenly” scheduled before the normal bench due to “mismanagement.”
According to a Supreme Court ruling, it resulted in the parties’ and the institution’s time and resources being wasted.
A normal bench made up of Justice Shah, Justice Ayesha A. Malik, and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan heard those matters. In addition to the case’s merits, the constitutionality of a portion of the Customs Act was contested during the hearing on January 13.
After the bench’s jurisdiction was questioned and the cases were postponed until January 16, the judicial branch realized their grave error and sent a note to the regular committee in accordance with the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023.
Afridi, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), presided over the regular committee that met on January 17 in light of the seriousness of the lapse. The committee stated that Article 191A (3) read with Article 191A (5) “expressly vests such jurisdiction only in the constitutional bench,” according to the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the committee ordered that the cases be re-fixed before the constitutional bench committee and withdrew them from the ordinary bench.
According to the court, the regular committee also mandated that going forward, “regardless of any order passed by a regular bench,” all cases falling under Article 191A would be brought before the constitutional bench committee.
Proceedings for contempt
The SC stated that the contempt case against the additional registrar was heard by the normal bench, which included Justices Shah and Abbasi, on Tuesday.
According to an announcement from the SC, the registrar argued during his appearance before the bench that the error in fixing the cases under examination and the de-listing of the cases before the bench was not motivated by malice on the part of the additional registrar but rather was a legitimate action carried out in accordance with the regular committee’s directive.
Justice Shah noted during Tuesday’s session that the court decision placing the case under the regular bench’s jurisdiction was extremely clear while pointing to the registrar.
Justice Aqeel inquired for the minutes of the committee meeting that made the decision to reassign the case, emphasizing that it was a very serious matter to remove a case that had been partially heard from the normal bench. The registrar said that the minutes were “confidential.”
The registrar claimed that the regular committee that fixed cases could also withdraw them, despite Justice Shah’s claim that no committee could do so through an administrative order once proceedings started.
Justice Shah stepped in and said, “You just cannot do it,” stressing that once the case is fixed, it cannot be removed.
He went on to say, “We will not let it go because it is a gift from God.”
The 26th Amendment concerns were brought before the constitutional bench only because of the current case, according to Justice Aqeel. He lamented that a “research officer” was making judgments about where to address the issue.
The bench’s makeup could be altered again tomorrow, he noted, “so we don’t know after raising the issue.”
It was “not just one research officer but an entire section of research officers of the court,” the registrar retorted.
Even the normal committee could not disregard a court order, Justice Shah emphasized.
However, senior counsel Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed argued that the full court, which consists of all SC judges, should be consulted on the contempt case and the issue pertaining to the normal bench’s jurisdiction.
Chaudhry Aamir Rehman, the Additional Attorney General (AAG), questioned why the additional registrar should face contempt charges since the court was still considering the regular committee’s ruling.
The three-judge bench that had started the contempt proceedings but was later reduced to a two-judge bench should be restored, according to advocate Shahid Jameel’s suggestion to the court. At this point, Justice Aqeel noted that any bench might hear the contempt case.
However, the hearing, which was originally scheduled to reconvene on Wednesday, may not go forward because it has been delisted.
Judges’ letter
Earlier, Justice Shah, Justice Malik, and Justice Aqeel emphasized in a three-page letter to the heads of regular and constitutional committees that the court office’s failure to follow a judicial order not only compromises the institution’s integrity but also violates established laws, which make it clear that administrative orders cannot take away the bench’s jurisdiction when it comes to a matter.
“It undermines the judiciary’s reputation as a fair and unbiased arbiter of justice and raises serious concerns about the independence of the benches. Such non-compliance constitutes contempt of court.”
According to the letter, the court’s judicial order from January 16 must be followed in order to preserve independence, transparency, judge comity, and the court’s efficient operation. The office may also be instructed to schedule the aforementioned case for Tuesday at 1pm in accordance with the letter’s contents and the judicial order.
