- Judge Mansoor Ali Shah questions the authority of the Committee of Judges.
- Hamid Khan defends the powers of the Practices and Procedures Committee.
- Nazar Abbas submits his answer, requesting the withdrawal of the notice.
Islamabad: The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on Thursday in the court of the court against the additional registrar Nazar Abbas in the case of the powers of magistrate.
A court made up of two members of the Supreme Court heard the court of the court against the additional clerk for not having scheduled the hearing of the Magistrate’s powers.
The problem in question concerns the erroneous business fixation – which included a challenge to the Vires of the customs law of 1969 – by the additional (judicial) registrar Nazar Abbas – which was removed from its functions – which incorrectly settled in business intended for the Supreme Court. Constitutional seat instead of an ordinary seat.
The cases were set before a regular college of three judges which were heard on January 13, 2025, where in addition to the substance of the case, the constitutionality of sub-article 2 of article 11a of the customs law was disputed.
The jurisdiction of the court was disputed and thereafter, the cases were adjourned on January 16.
Aware of the serious gap on their part, the judiciary, through a note, contacted the regular committee under article 2 (1) of the law of 2023 on the Supreme Court (practice and procedure) .
Given the severity of the forfeiture, the committee met on January 17 under the chairmanship of the Chief Judge of Pakistan (CJP). The Committee noted that clause 3 of article 191a of the Constitution, read with clause 5 of article 191a of the Constitution, expressly confers such competence to the constitutional judiciary and to anyone else.
The Committee therefore withdrew these cases from the ordinary judiciary and ordered that they are subject to the Committee of the Constitutional Magistracy constituted under article 191a of the Constitution to be reinforced.
The question also led the Shah judges, Ayesha to Malik and Aqeel to write a letter to the CJP Yahya Afridi, chief of the constitutional magistracy, the judge Amin-Id-Din Khan on the question of the formation of the magistrates.
Today’s audience
During the procedure, judge Mansoor Ali Shah wondered if a legal order could be canceled by the Committee of Judges.
Amicus Curiae Hamid Khan said that an administrative order could not go beyond a legal order. Judge Shah also stressed that the case brought before the judiciary concerns the question of whether the judges’ committee could withdraw the case in the light of a judicial order and such a decision could be revised by the whole of the court.
Judge Aqeel Abbasi noted that there seems to be a confusion on the issue, because in the past, the training of the seats was the prerogative of the Supreme Council, but certain powers of the court have since been reduced, raising questions on the 26th constitutional amendment.
Judge Shah also asked if a country allowed the executive to train seats instead of the judiciary, to which Hamid replied that this does not happen anywhere.
Justice Shah said that article 191A would allow the creation of a judicial commission for constitutional judges, and judge Abbasi expressed concerns about potential overlap in this regard.
Hamid explained that Parliament could legislate to determine the jurisdiction of the courts other than the CS, but could not reduce the powers of the Supreme Court.
Hamid also said that the Practices and Procedures Committee has the power to entrust business to constitutional magistracy. Judge Shah asked if the committee could ignore a legal order, referring to the Raja Amir affair in which a plenary court had been formed.
Judge Shah also raised questions about the powers of the Practices and Procedures Committee under Article 2A, asking if he could go beyond judicial orders.
Hamid replied that no situation should occur in which the Practices and Procedures Committee does not take into account a legal order.
Meanwhile, the Pakistan Attorney General, Mansoor Usman Awan, said that the current judiciary had not been properly formed for the courtyard case.
According to the rules of the Supreme Court, the chief judge will make the decision concerning the training of a court for the courts of contempt in the court.
The Attorney General also specified that the current judiciary does not have the power to hear the affairs of contempt in the court. He explained that this case is in the field of civil or criminal contempt. The complete procedure in the event of outrage in the court is described and it is up to the chief judge to supervise it.
The CS, after hearing the arguments, reserved its judgment in the court of the court, which will be announced later.
Furthermore, sources have confirmed that the SC’s additional clerk submitted an answer to the advice of justification before the court, requesting his withdrawal and declaring that no disobedience to the judicial order had taken place.
He specifies that the question of the training of judges was sent to the committee of practices and procedures for examination.
