Additional Registrar Judicial Nazar Abbas has challenged a show-cause notice for contempt of court in the Supreme Court.
In response to the notice, the Supreme Court has constituted a six-member larger bench to hear Nazar Abbas’s intra-court appeal.
The bench will be headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and includes Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed, and Justice Musarrat Hilali.
The registrar has also filed a plea seeking a stay on the contempt proceedings initiated against him.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the hearing for Monday, 27 January, at 1 PM. The case, which has drawn significant attention, will be heard by the newly formed larger bench.
Earlier this week, the SC reserved its judgment in the contempt of court case against Additional Registrar Nazar Abbas concerning the bench powers case.
A two-judge bench heard the case, in which Abbas was accused of failing to schedule a hearing for the bench powers matter.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, presiding over the two-member bench with Justice Aqeel Abbasi, raised concerns during the hearing, questioning the committee’s authority to retract cases already under judicial review.
Justice Shah observed, ̶0;Prima facie, the judges’ committee disregarded a judicial order. While contempt proceedings could be initiated, we will not issue a notice in this case.”
The proceedings touched upon broader constitutional principles, including the scope of Article 191-A of the Constitution, which governs the judiciary’s role and autonomy.
Hamid Khan, appointed as amicus curiae by the apex court, argued that the committee’s actions were not only procedurally flawed but also inconsistent with constitutional safeguards.
“The Constitution does not permit some judges to have more powers than others. Such practices undermine the spirit of equality and judicial independence,” he asserted.
Justice Shah remarked that the question of whether the Chief Justice of Pakistan or a committee has the exclusive authority to form a full court remains pivotal.
He added that if the committee disregarded a judicial order, the issue might warrant referral to a full court for adjudication.
Justice Aqeel Abbasi noted potential confusion surrounding the judges’ committee’s jurisdiction and procedural limits.
He emphasised the need to address ambiguities in the Supreme Court Rules of 1980, which define the framework for forming judicial benches.
Hamid Khan further contended that the committee’s retraction of the case contravened constitutional procedures, highlighting that any such decision should align with Article 191-A.
However, he acknowledged that the committee might have the administrative authority to reassign cases in certain circumstances. The court also heard arguments from Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, who emphasised the need for judicial restraint.
He suggested that procedural missteps, if any, should be resolved without undermining the judiciary’s institutional integrity.
Justice Shah drew attention to a related precedent involving former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, where a similar reassignment of cases raised questions about judicial autonomy.
“If a judicial order can be overridden by an administrative committee, it sets a dangerous precedent for judicial independence,” he remarked. The attorney general recommended referring the matter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan for a final decision on whether a full court is necessary.
He argued that contempt proceedings were unwarranted in this case and that the judges’ committee acted within its administrative remit.
Nguồn bài viết : XS Mega 6/45
