Islamabad:
A Supreme Court division bench exempt his additional registrar from the accusations of contempt, but noted that the two SC committees responsible for the registration of cases before the regular and constitutional benches “illegally” withdrew a case from the bench and are likely to be outrageous with the court.
Interestingly, the committee responsible for the list of affairs before the regular SC benches includes CJ Yahya Afridi, judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Judge Aminuddin Khan
The committee of three members responsible for the list of cases before the constitutional bench (CB) includes judge Amicin Khan, judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail and judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
The bench including judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and judge Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi made his written order in a case of court against the additional (judicial) Nazar abbas on Monday.
The bench issued shows an opinion of the case in Abbas for an alleged contempt in court after a lot of cases in which the Vires of the 1969 custom law were disputed were withdrawn from the bench and were referred to the committee of CB for rehabilitation.
The court noted that by examining the case, he concluded that Abbas did not deliberately avoid the list of affairs before the bench as indicated in the order of the court.
“There is no evidence suggesting that he had a personal interest in the matter or had known with any of the parties to the case, and he did not act with the intention of damaging one of the parties to The case.
“In the absence of these factors or elements of contumiacia, its conduct cannot be considered as abuse, and it cannot be considered as having suffered from Mala fides, requiring an outrage procedure.
“For these reasons, by accepting his explanation, the opinion of the case of the proof that was given to him for an outrage procedure is released,” he said.
The court noted that he had also deliberated on the question of whether, following the discharge of the notice of justification against the additional (judicial) registrar, the case must be considered as concluded or if it should continue The members of the two committees.
The bench said that the first committee led by CJ Afridi “illegally” withdrawn Laarn’s affairs from a partial part of a bench and transferred it for the examination of the other committee, through a administrative order by canceling the effect of a judicial order.
“While the second committee, in total, contempt for the judicial order adopted by the regular bench, simply under the management of the first committee, continued and set the case before the constitutional bench on January 27, 2025 .
“The two committees were not legally authorized to make administrative decisions dated January 17, 2025 in violation of the judicial order,” he added.
In this context, he said, it seems that the case must continue the members of the two committees. “However, judicial convenience and decorum require that said question be considered and decided by the complete court of the Supreme Court so that it is decided with authority once and for all,” he added.
The bench clearly indicated that he did not refer to the case to the committee constituted under article 2 of the law of practice and procedure, because its authority is limited to the constitution of benches
“The complete court of the Supreme Court, however, is constituted by the Constitution itself under article 176. The distinction between the benches of a court and the complete court is well established and constitutionally recognized in the provisions of Article 203J (2) © © and (d) of the Constitution and the responsibility to convene the full court is conventionally in the field of CJ.
The order of the division bench also noted that no one had the right to disobey or refuse respect for the court order simply because it thinks that it is incompatible with the Constitution and the law.
“When a bench is seized of a case and heard it in part, the case is part of the legal proceedings, and the bench hearing the case assumes its exclusive competence.
“Any interference – whether by withdrawal or reallocation – without judicial justification undermines the principle of judicial independence,” he said
After unveiling the verdict, a wider bench of six members who heard the intra-loss appeal of the additional registrar against the presentation notice issued by the bench led by Shah, eliminated the ICA.
However, during the procedure, the head of the bench, judge Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked how an order had been made when terminating the outrage procedure.
“The verdict [of Shah led bench] Includes the chief judge among the alleged contemporary. Will those accused of contempt will the full court form? “, He questioned.
J. Muhammad Ali Mazhar pointed out that the law on the court in the court presents a complete procedure, which first includes the issuance of an opinion.
“Everyone in the world is entitled to the right to a fair trial under article 10-A. Are judges judged as not being authorized to the protections of article 10-A?”
“Will the full court formed understand the four judges accused of contempt? They could have published an opinion, and we, the four judges, will have appeared before their court,” he added.
Later, a majority of four judges declared in the short-term ordinance that the intra-haired appeal had been eliminated, with detailed reasons to be provided later.
However, two judges, judge Athar Minallah and judge Shahid Waheed, only agreed to eliminate the case, but did not agree with the majority of the four judges to issue detailed reasons.
