Additional Judicial Registrar Nazar Abbas challenged a show cause notice for contempt of court in the Supreme Court.
In response to the notification, the Supreme Court constituted a larger six-member bench to hear Nazar Abbas’ intra-judicial appeal, Express News reported.
The bench will be headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and includes Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Musarrat Hilali.
The registrar also filed a plea seeking stay of the contempt proceedings initiated against him.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing for Monday, January 27 at 1 p.m. The case, which has attracted much attention, will be heard by the newly formed expanded court.
Earlier this week, the SC reserved judgment in the contempt of court case against Additional Registrar Nazar Abbas regarding the magistrate powers matter.
A two-judge court heard the case, in which Abbas was accused of failing to schedule a hearing on the question of the court’s powers.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who chairs the two-member bench along with Justice Aqeel Abbasi, raised concerns during the hearing, questioning the panel’s power to withdraw cases already under judicial review.
Justice Shah observed: “Prima facie, the judges committee has disregarded a court order. Although contempt proceedings may be initiated, we will not issue an opinion in this matter. »
The proceedings touched on broader constitutional principles, including the scope of Article 191-A of the Constitution, which governs the role and autonomy of the judiciary.
Hamid Khan, appointed as amicus curiae by the Supreme Court, argued that the committee’s actions were not only procedurally flawed but also inconsistent with constitutional guarantees.
“The Constitution does not allow certain judges to have more powers than others. Such practices undermine the spirit of equality and judicial independence,” he said.
Justice Shah observed that the question of whether the Chief Justice of Pakistan or a committee has the exclusive power to form a full court remains crucial.
He added that if the committee disregarded a court order, the matter could warrant being referred to a full court for determination.
Justice Aqeel Abbasi highlighted potential confusion around the jurisdiction of the judges’ committee and procedural limits.
He stressed the need to remove ambiguities in the Supreme Court Rules of 1980, which lay down the framework for training judicial officers.
Hamid Khan further argued that the committee’s withdrawal of the case contravened constitutional procedures, emphasizing that such a decision should be in accordance with Article 191-A.
He acknowledged, however, that the committee could have the administrative power to reassign files in certain circumstances.
The court also heard arguments from Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, who stressed the need for judicial restraint.
He suggested that procedural errors, if any, should be resolved without undermining the institutional integrity of the judiciary.
Justice Shah drew attention to a related precedent involving former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, where a similar reallocation of cases raised questions about judicial autonomy.
“If a judicial order can be overturned by an administrative committee, it sets a dangerous precedent for judicial independence,” he noted.
The Attorney General recommended referring the case to the Chief Justice of Pakistan to make a final decision on whether a full court is necessary.
He argued that the contempt proceedings were unjustified in this case and that the judges’ committee had acted within its administrative powers.
