ISLAMABAD:
The clashes between the senior judges of the Supreme Court intensified when Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah raised his objection to the inclusion of two judges in a larger bench to hear the intra-judicial appeal (ICA) of a Additional Registrar against issuance of contempt notice.
A three-member bench of the apex court headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah on January 21 issued a contempt notice to Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas after a large number of cases were withdrawn from the bench and referred to a committee of the constitutional court. bench for re-registration.
While a bench headed by Justice Shah took up the matter, Nazar Abbas filed an ICA against the show cause notice, an appeal which was listed for hearing before a larger six-member bench on Thursday.
A committee of the SC formed the bench headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Musarrat Hilali by majority vote. The court is expected to hear the case on January 27.
Objecting to the judiciary, Justice Shah said judges with conflict of interest cannot sit on the judiciary. “Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar are the members of the committee constituted under clause (4) of Article 191-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,” Justice Shah said in his written objections to the larger panel.
“The said Commission seized the CPLA case n°836-K/2020 and set it for 27.1.2025 before the Constitutional Chamber, they cannot therefore be members of the Chamber since the decisions of the two Commissions are in question for contempt of procedure,” he said.
Justice Shah said that after the meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan on Friday, Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi had convened an informal meeting of the three-member committee in his chambers.
CJP Afridi, Justice Shah and Justice Aminuddin Khan attended the meeting.
“It has been agreed that a larger Bench be constituted to hear the intra-judicial appeal in this matter. I have recommended the constitution of a larger Bench comprising five judges in order of seniority, excluding of those who cannot hear said ICA due to conflicts of interest.
“However, the CJP expressed that it wanted a four-member seat on this matter and the meeting ended there. Later that night [of January 23]I received a WhatsApp message at 9:33 p.m. from my secretary seeking approval of a proposed six-member bench for approval as a member of the Committee.
“I informed my secretary that I will take care of this matter in the morning. Later, at 10:28 p.m., my secretary shared on WhatsApp the court list issued by the registrar after approval of the two members of the committee constituted under section 2(1) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023.
“On receipt of the list from the Court, I communicated my objection via WhatsApp for forwarding to the concerned officials. I hereby record the said objection for record along with the background regarding the constitution of the said larger bench.
“My objection to this rushed constitution of a larger bench is that judges who have a conflict of interest in this case cannot sit on the bench,” he added.
Justice Shah said that since he was not given an opportunity to record his opinion on the record, the record itself was never sent to his office and the majority itself decided the case and published the list.
“Therefore, I would like this note to be included in the minutes of the Commission’s decision dated 23.1.2025 constituting the enlarged Chamber,” he concludes.