Islamabad:
The judge of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC), Sardar Ijaz Ishaq Khan, ordered the judicial deputy director on Thursday to present the rules of the Superior Court to clarify whether the president of the Supreme Court could withdraw a case of the court of a judge while pending the hearing and sending it to another bank.
During the contempt procedures against the deputy secretary, the judge said that he depended on his decision that there was no reach in the law to transfer a case in the way in which the request for contempt to the court of the cause list of the Court of Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI) was expelled from the cause list of the court.
The matter began on Wednesday after all cases related to the meetings of the PTI founder prison were scheduled to listen to a bank of three members headed by Thursday the President of the Justice Sarfaraz Dragar of three members. The cases included Yousafzai’s request, which should be heard by Judge Khan.
The judge realized the cancellation of the list of causes of his court. In the Court notice, Deputy Director Sultan Mahmood appeared in court and told the judge that the instructions came from the president of the president of the president.
Continuing with the hearing on Thursday, the judge commented that he would not issue the Court notice to anyone. However, he emphasized that the matter was not the leader of a political party but about establishing principles.
Appearing on the Court notice, Islamabad General Lawyer (AG) Ayaz Shaukat said the court spoke on Wednesday and should now be heard. He added that the controversy arose to determine whether Yousafzai was the lawyer of the founder of PTI or not.
The AG referred to a statement by the focal person of the founder of PTI who had declared that Yousafzai was no longer the lawyer of the founder of PTI. Due to that controversy, the AG said, all cases related to the founder of PTI combined and placed before a larger bank.
However, Judge Khan commented that the court had appointed a commission on that matter. He told the AG if a commission meeting with the founder of PTI organized the matter would have completed in just 30 seconds.
However, Judge Khan added, this matter was not before the Court at this time, but the court was investigating the question of whether a pending case could be transferred in this way. He said that when a lawyer tells the court that he was a lawyer, the court did not sought the confirmation of each petitioner.
The judge noted that the question of combining cases and forming a larger bank was related to the judge who had been listening to the case. Consequently, he added, the judge sent the matter to the President of the Supreme Court and that the President of the Supreme Court issued an order.
Then, the court addressed the AG: “Will the arguments give before the largest bank on the request for contempt to the Court?” He added that the request for contempt to the Court would be heard by the same judge whose order had been violated. The audience was postponed until after EID.
