Additional Additional Registration Nazar Abbas has challenged a notice of display cause for contempt to the Court in the Supreme Court.
In response to the notice, the Supreme Court has constituted a larger bank of six members to listen to the intra-couurt appeal of Nazar Abbas, said Express News.
The Bank will be headed by Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail and includes Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Judge Athar Minallah, Judge Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Judge Shahid Waheed and Judge Musarrat Hilali.
The registrar has also presented a plea in search of a stay in the contempt procedures initiated against him.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing for Monday, January 27 at 1 PM. The case, which has caught significant attention, will be heard by the largest formed bank.
Earlier this week, the SC reserved its sentence in the case of contempt to the Court against the additional Nazar Abbas registrar on the case of the bench powers.
A bank of two judges listened to the case, in which Abbas was accused of not programming a hearing for the issue of the Bank’s powers.
Judge Mansoor Ali Shah, presiding over the Bank of two members with Judge Aqeel Abbasi, raised concerns during the hearing, questioning the authority of the committee to retract cases and under judicial review.
Judge Shah observed: “Prima Facie, the Judges Committee does not take into account a court order. Although contempt procedures could be initiated, we will not issue a notice in this case.”
The procedures survived 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 Apex court, argued that the actions of the Committee were not only procedurally failures but also inconsistent with constitutional safeguards.
“The Constitution does not allow some judges to have more powers than others. Such practices undermine the spirit of judicial equality and independence,” he said.
Judge Shah commented that the question of whether the president of the president of Pakistan or a committee has the exclusive authority to form a complete court remains fundamental.
He added that if the committee ignored a court order, the problem could justify the derivation to a complete court for the award.
Judge Aqeel Abbasi pointed out a possible confusion around the jurisdiction and procedure limits of the Judges Committee.
He emphasized the need to address ambiguities in the rules of the 1980 Supreme Court, which define the framework to form judicial banks.
Hamid Khan also argued that the retraction of the case of the Committee against Constitutional Procedures, highlighting that any decision should be aligned with article 191-A.
However, he acknowledged that the Committee could have the administrative authority to reallocate cases in certain circumstances.
The Court also heard arguments of Attorney General Usman Awan, who emphasized the need for judicial restriction.
He suggested that the false procedural steps, if any, will be resolved without undermining the institutional integrity of the Judiciary.
Judge Shah attracted attention to a related precedent that involves the former president of the Supreme Court Qazi Faez Isa, where a similar reallocation of cases raised questions about judicial autonomy.
“If an administrative committee can cancel a court order, it establishes a dangerous precedent for judicial independence,” he said.
The Attorney General recommended referring the matter to the President of the Supreme Court of Pakistan for a final decision on whether a complete court is necessary.
He argued that the contempt procedures were not justified in this case and that the Judges Committee acted within its administrative mandate
