SC Bench Drops Contempt Notice Amid Jurisdiction Dispute with Registrar Officia

SC Bench Drops Contempt Notice Amid Jurisdiction Dispute with Registrar Officia

On Monday, the two Supreme Court judges took off the contempt order sent out a week ago against a top staff member for failing to resolve a dispute concerning the legality of the regular benches.

The verdict was rendered when two judges, made up of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, rendered their decision regarding contempt cases against the Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas, whom the court’s office had removed on Tuesday.

The contempt notice was served in the context of a dispute over the SC’s regular benches’ ability to determine the constitutionality of Article 191A of the Constitution — the law under the Constitutional bench, which was created following the 26th Amendment -was not scheduled to be heard on January 20 according to the date required by the court.

In the hearing today, Justice Shah observed, “The court has arrived at the conclusion that the additional registrar (judicial) did not deliberately violate the court orders.”

He added that neither the apex court could find any evidence that proved any evidence that showed the SC official had a personal interest in the matter nor that there was evidence of “ill intent.”

“There is no indication of mala fide intent in his actions,” said a 20-page ruling that was issued by the justice.

In the following days, the senior judge declared that the bench would rescind the show-cause order about the court’s contempt against Abbas.

Justice Shah noted that the bench deliberated on two issues that were previously formulated- one of which was about dropping an appeal from a previously heard bench and the other concerning invalidating court orders by an administrative order.

In response to the initial question, Justice Shah said the court had concluded that the case could not be taken off the bench or removed from the list. In the second instance point, he said an administrative decision cannot invalidate a judicial decision.

“It can be held unequivocally that no administrative authority, including the Committees constituted under Section 2 of the Act and 191A of the Constitution, can, by an administrative order, undo the effect of a judicial order,” the judgment of a court read.

The bench also sent the case to the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), Yahya Afridi, to consider the need for a full court to determine if contempt proceedings were required against the Apex Court’s two committees.

The Registrar Muhammad Saleem Khan had explained that the case could not be resolved on January 20 due to two decisions — one by members of the regularly constituted committee formed by Section 2 under the SC Practice and Procedure Act and one by the constitutional committee created under Section 191(A)(4) of the Constitution.

The current order reads: “We find that it was the administrative decisions of the committees that illegally nullified the judicial orders and unlawfully deprived the regular bench of its judicial power to decide the jurisdictional question raised before it.”

The bench also said that it was evident it was likely that the “matter has to proceed further against the members of the two committees,” which have removed the matter from the bench that is typically used.

The bench, however, described the issue as”serious” and “warranting the collective and institutional deliberation” of all SC judges. The court emphasized: “Judicial propriety and decorum demand that the said question be considered and decided by the full court.”

The court then referred the matter to CJP Afridi to create an entire court.

Furthermore, the judges ordered that the primary case during the time that the issue of jurisdiction was brought up be resolved before the bench of three members that was hearing the case comprised of Justices Shah Ayesha M. Malik as well as Irfan Saadat Khan during the beginning of February.

The issue of jurisdiction occurred on January 13 when a three-judge bench headed by Justice Shah heard the federal government’s appeal against the decision of the Sindh High Court to dismiss section 221-A(2) in the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioner had claimed that the regular bench could not consider the case since it was a challenge to the legality of the laws.

In the previous hearings that also saw changes on the bench, there was a change in the bench. SC has appointed four senior counsels as amici custodians to aid the court.

Hearing on pleas for the 26th Amendment adjourned for 3 weeks.

In a different change, a constitutional bench led by Justice Aminuddin Khan finally decided to hear several contests against the 26th Amendment.

The court has issued notices to the respondents in response to their requests to form a fully-fledged court to consider the case and live stream the proceedings.

In the end, the case was delayed for three weeks.

Many petitioners, such as bar associations of the high courts, had demanded that the SC create a packed court that could hear this matter rather than an existing Constitutional bench created by the 26th Amendment that was being contested.