Islamabad:
In the context of the order of the Superior Court of Islamabad that restricts its judicial judge, the Supreme Court has ruled that a judge of the same court cannot issue any type of deed or can take measures against another judge of the same court.
“The constitutional scheme of immunity to the judges of the superior courts is to ensure the independence of the Judiciary, which is the command of article 2 of the Constitution. It is for this reason, a judge of the same Court cannot issue any type of deed or can take measures against another judge of the court. Jamal Khan Commandkhail when he hears the case of contempt against SC Additional Additional Registration Nazar Abbas for his failure not to fix a case before a case before a case before a case before a case in the case of a case in the case of a case.
Nazar Abbas had filed an intra court against the issuance of the show notice by the bank led by Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.
The committee working under the Law on Practice and Procedure of the Supreme Court of 2023 by majority formed a larger bank of six members to listen to its intac -cort appeal.
Judge Shah had objected to the inclusion of Judge Commandkhail and Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, since they had violated the court order and withdrew the case of the regular bank.
On January 27, two judges, namely Judge Athar Minallah and Judge Shahid Waheed dismissed the Ica de Nazar Abbas due to his retirement.
However, the four judges, who are members of the Constitutional Bank, in a short time did not allow the entire appeal to be removed and pointed out that, as the matter is related to the interpretation of the Constitution, therefore, the appeal is arranged and the reasons will be issued later.
In January, Judge Shah had pointed out that both SC committees (five judges, including the CJP) were responsible for listing cases before regular and constitutional banks “illegally” withdraw a case from the bank and are responsible for contempt of the court.
Judge Shah in his order said that the first committee led by CJ Aphridi “illegally” withdrew the cases of the partial eye of a bank and transferred it for the consideration of the other committee, through an administrative order by undoing the effect of a court order.
“While the second committee, without taking into account the court order approved by the regular bank, simply in compliance with the leadership of the first committee, went ahead and set the case before the Constitutional Bank on January 27, 2025.
“Both committees were not legally authorized to make administrative decisions dated January 17, 2025 in violation of the court order,” he added.
In this context, he said, it seems that the matter must advance even more against the members of the two committees.
“However, the judicial property and the decorum demand that this question be considered and decided by the full court of the Supreme Court to decide authority once and for all,” says the order written by Judge Shah.
After almost eight months, the majority judges in the ICA issued a detailed trial in which the order of Judge Shah has been discussed.
SC game
Judge Commandkhail raised a question of whether the members of both committees, who are sitting, the judges could be proceeded by virtue of article 204 of the Constitution by their fellow judges for the contempt of this court.
In paragraph 4 of its detailed ruler establishes that, by virtue of occupying a constitutional position, sub-article (5) of article 199 of the Constitution, it grants immunity to the judges of the Supreme Court and the Superior Courts for the acts carried out within its judicial and administrative capacity.
“The analogy to provide immunity is to prevent a judge for a court from misuse of jurisdiction and authority judging and controlling a fellow judge of the same court.
“It protects the judge against any interference from exterior or within the institution. Safeguarda the integrity and authority of the Court and increases the ability of the judges to perform their duties without problems, to ensure that their decisions are not influenced by the fear of being submitted to any adverse action.
“The concept of immunity is to preserve the authority of the judicial institution, which is crucial for the rule of law and for the proper administration of justice.”
The Court said that if a judge of the Superior Court cannot issue a court order to another judge of the same Court, how can a judge be given to be able to issue an address or initiate procedures under article 204 (2) of the Constitution against a judge sitting from the same court and punish him for committing contempt to the court?
“The accusation of misconduct against a judge of the Supreme Court or a superior court can only be investigated and treated under article 209 of the Constitution by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
“Sub-article (7) of article 209 of the Constitution prohibits any other forum to investigate issues of misconduct against a judge of the Supreme Court or a superior court. This is a substantive provision and an outstanding characteristic of the Constitution. Initiate contempt procedures against a person may require investigation, investigation or trial, which leads to the punish 4).
The Court said that in the event that during the pendency of an issue, if the jurisdiction of a court is removed through the amendment in the Constitution or the law or through a new legislation, the court where the matter is pending or is treated as a partial eye, loses its authority to take additional measures in the matter, from there, must stop the procedures.
“A judge (s) or a bank (s) cannot lead to the office or none of the committee that fixes a particular case before itself, which is not within its jurisdiction or according to the list is not fixed before said bank or can withdraw any matter that is already pending before another bank. Only the bank that is embedded with the matter or has heard in part, can expel it.
“The judges are bound by their oath, the code of conduct of the judges, the law and the rules. The strict adhesion of which it is essential to maintain judicial discipline and the operation without problems of the Court. If each judge of the Supreme Court or of a superior court begins suffering will be the general public.”
The court said that simply, when placing files of the requests before the regular bank does not mean that it has made the jurisdiction proceed with the matter.
“In any case, constitutionally, the regular bank became Functus officio, therefore, it should have stopped the procedures, leaving matters for its disposition by the forum, having jurisdiction.”
The court said that it was the constitutional obligation of the regular bank members to have obeyed the command of the Constitution, when refraining from proceeding to the matter, especially when the wise lawyer of the petitioners made a reference to article 191a (3) and (5) of the Constitution, but the wise members of the regular bank opted for the matter.
“With great respect, there was no justification for the regular bank for other procedures on the matter in contravention of the relevant provisions of the Constitution.”
The sentence also said that a question arises about how they decided to proceed against the members of the committees.
“Otherwise, this order cannot be implemented for the reason, first of all, there was no regular bank address to any of the committee; secondly, the members of both committees have no power to set the requests before the regular bank, as by operation of the Constitution, these requests have already been transferred and were pending before the Constitutional, before approved the request of the requests before the requests.
“The members of both committees do not have any role in the transfer of requests to the Constitutional Bank, nor did they have the power to withdraw them and fix them before the regular bank. In any circumstance, the members of both committees did nothing that would constitute an act that falls within the scope of article 204 of the Constitution.”
Abuzar Salman Khan Niazi’s lawyer says that Nemo Judoex’s principle in sua K hunting (no one can be a judge in his own cause) has been firmly confirmed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, who has argued that even the probability of vitiata bias procedures.
“While I totally agree that a judge cannot issue a legal order or contempt against a companion judge, the problem here is not the legality or constitutionality of contempt notices in themselves”
Niazi says that the matter had already been resolved and retired notices; However, when the case related to the notices of contempt against two judges came before the court, they themselves chose to listen and decide it. When sitting in court on their own cause, they violated this fundamental principle, which makes illegal procedures, Coram not Judice, and without legal authority under article 10 of the Constitution, “he adds.
Another lawyer wonders when the final order was not challenged, so how the bank could issue a judgment.
The order also prohibits a judge to direct a case that has not been included in the list of causes.
