Islamabad:
A Bank of the Division of the Supreme Court has exonerated its additional record of contempt charges, but noted that both the SC committees responsible for listing the cases before regular and constitutional banks “illegally” withdrew a case from the bank and They are responsible for contempt for the court.
Interestingly, the committee responsible for listing cases before regular SC banks includes CJ Yahya Afridi, Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Judge Aminuddin Khan
The three members committee responsible for listing cases before the Constitutional Bank (CB) includes Judge Aminuddin Khan, Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail and Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
The bank comprised of Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Judge Aqed Ahmed Abbasi issued on Monday his order written in a case of contempt to the court initiated against the additional (judicial) registrar Nazar Abbas.
The bank issued by the show of the case to Abbas for alleged contempt of the court after a lot of cases in which the Custom Vires Law, 1969 was challenged from the bank and were referred to the CB committee to return to the list.
The court pointed out that by examining the case, he found that Abbas did not deliberately avoid the list of cases before the bank as indicated in the court order.
“There is no evidence to suggest that he had any personal interest in the matter or that he has connected with any of the parties in the case, nor did he act with the intention of causing damage to any of the parties in the case. There is no indication of intention of Bad FIDE in your actions.
“In the absence of such factors or elements of contumacy, their behavior cannot be considered contumaz, nor can it be said that it has suffered in bad faith, which requires contempt procedures.
“For these reasons, by accepting his explanation, the cause of the show of the show issued against him for the contempt procedures is downloaded,” he said.
The Court indicated that it also deliberated on the question of whether, after discharge of the notification of the cause of exhibition against the additional registrar (judicial), the matter must be considered concluded or if it must proceed to the members of the two committees.
The Bank said that the first committee led by CJ Aphridi “illegally” withdrew the cases 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, judicial property and the decorum demand that this question be considered and decided by the complete court of the Supreme Court to decide with authority once and for all,” he added.
The bank made it clear that it was not referring to the matter to the committee constituted by virtue of section 2 of the Practice and Procedure Law, 2023, since its authority is limited to constituent banks
“However, the full court of the Supreme Court is constituted by the Constitution itself by virtue of article 176. The distinction between the banks of a court and the full court is well established and is constitutionally recognized in the provisions of article 203J (2 ) © Y (d) of the Constitution and the responsibility of convening the complete Court is conventionally within the Domain of the CJ “.
The Division banking order also pointed out that no one has the right to disobey or reject compliance with the court order simply because it believes that it is incompatible with the Constitution and the law.
“When a bank seizes a case and has heard it in part, the matter becomes part of the judicial procedures, and the bank that listens to the case assumes exclusive jurisdiction over it.
“Any interference, either through withdrawal or reallocation, without judicial justification undermines the principle of judicial independence,” he said
After revealing the verdict, a larger bank of six members who listened to the intra-court appeal of the additional registrar against the cause of the show issued by Shah directed the bank willing to the ICA.
However, during the procedure, the bank manager, Judge Jamal Khan Commandkhail asked how an order was issued when the contempt procedures were canceled.
“The verdict [of Shah led bench] Includes the president of the Supreme Court among the alleged containers. Will those defendants form the full court? “He questioned.
Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar commented that the contempt of the judicial law establishes a complete procedure, which includes the issuance of a notice first.
“All in the world have the right to a right trial by virtue of article 10-A. Do the judges who have as contempors do not have the right to the protections of article 10-A?”
“Will the full court formed include the four judges accused of contempt? They could have issued a notice, and we, the four judges, would have appeared before their court,” he added.
Later, most of the four judges declared in the brevity that Intra-Court appeal was eliminated, with detailed reasons that will be provided later.
However, two judges, Judge Athar Minallah and Judge Shahid Waheed, agreed only at the point of eliminating the case, but did not agree with most of the four judges about the issuance of detailed reasons.
