Contempt notice withdrawn as SC calls for full court on committees’ powers

#Contempt #notice #withdrawn #calls #full #court #committees #powers

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Monday withdrew the notice of contempt against Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas and the Chief Justice of the Committees formed under the SC (practice and procedures). Pakistan (CJP) sent a file to Yahya Afridi. A constitutional bench committee formed under Act, 2023 and Article 191-A was constituted.

“We know that they [Additional Registrar (Judicial)] The court order did not deliberately avoid the correction of the cases in front of the bench as directed [….] The show cause notice issued against them for contempt of court proceedings has been dismissed, “Read a 20 -page verdict issued by a two -member bench comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Akhil Ahmed Abbasi.

The matter is related to the legalization that arises from the error of the cases error – which included a challenge to the Customs Act 1969 virus – through additional registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas, who The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench had falsely set up cases. A regular

During the subsequent hearings, it was revealed that the matter was not decided to hear and, instead, later, the constitutional bench was shifted to the bench, after which two comprised of Justice Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi. The bench issued a show cause notice. To Abbas

In today’s verdict, the court accepted the additional registrar’s argument-which was presented to the court in response to the show’s notice-that it has any option to set up a bench of judges and inform most of the competent authority. There was no, in which he did. A timely style

The verdict said, “Before explaining the bench in the court order, it is allegedly the failure of the contemporary to fix the matter, therefore, there is no contradictory act equally.”

“After examining the current registrar (Judicial) case of this court (Judicial), we have learned that he did not refrain from deliberately setting the cases before the bench as directed in the court order.

“There is no evidence that he had a personal interest in his case or he had contacted the matter with any parties, nor did he intend to harm any party in the matter. Work was not there.

‘Committees lack the powers to withdraw the case’

The SC (Practice and Procedure) Act, on the most controversial issue of 2023 powers and a constitutional bench committee set up under Article 191-A raised two separate questions of the law.

The first issue, which was considered, was whether the committees had the authority to withdraw a case from a bench in which they have already been recognized by a regular bench.

Responding to this in the negative, the verdict states that once a case was assigned to the bench and the matter has been ceson by the bench and partially heard that the Chief Justice is unilateral. It cannot be withdrawn. And re -assign it to another bench except specific, judicially recognized conditions.

Referring to the high constitutional value of judicial independence, under which a bench enjoys the freedom and freedom to decide in a pending case. Judicial proceedings, and a bench listening to the matter, has accepted a special jurisdiction.

He noted, “Any interference – whether with evacuation or re -assignment – the principle of judicial freedom without judicial justification is dissatisfied.”

Expressing regret that the integrity of the judicial system is hampered by the reorganization of the benches and may be serious tension, the decision states that the Chief Justice’s powers returns partially from a bench. They do not even grow or move, which has already accepted the jurisdiction.

He warned that “after hearing partially, the discretion or re -assignment of a case sets a dangerous view, disrupts the sanctity of the judicial proceedings and eliminates public confidence in the judiciary.”

“We understand that committees formed under Section 2 of the Act and the 191A of the Constitution do not have the power to withdraw a case that has been partially heard, where already has been recognized by a regular bench. , And it has been transferred to another bench, as long as the bench itself has cited the case to the committees to assign it to another bench for any justified reasons.

Meanwhile, the second question of the law is related to whether committees can eliminate the impact of the court order – under which the next hearing of a particular case has been fixed before a regular bench – and the court found that the above institutions were reported. I lack such powers.

“It can be clearly held that no administrative authority, including committees formed under Section 2 of the Act and the 191A of the Constitution, can eliminate the impact of the judicial order through an administrative order.”

He added, “We know that these were the administrative decisions of the committees, which illegally revoked the judicial orders and illegally to the regular bench of its judicial authority to decide its judicial question. Lose. “

Complete court

Understanding whether the court should move further against the members of the two committees to ignore illegal withdrawal, transfer of trial and neglect for a judicial order approved by a regular bench. There is more to move against members. .

However, referring to judicial property and decoration, the decision states that the aforesaid question should be considered by the SC’s full court and should decide so that it has been decided once and for all. “Go.

He deliberately handed over the matter to a respected Chief Justice for a full court meeting to deliberately and to decide on this important issue.

Review

The whole story revolves around a three -member bench, which includes Justice Shah, Justice Aisha, a country and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, who listened to some cases on January 13, 2025.

However, an objection to the jurisdiction of the bench was raised – which also included a challenge to the constitutional status of the constitution – based on Article 191A of the Constitution, which led to the postponement of January 16.

The bench was then re -formed by Justice Abbasi on January 16, replacing Justice Khan and directed the office to fix the cases before the first bench on January 20.

However. Cases were set in front of the Act, 2023.

The court, with the initiation of insulting the Swu Moto against the Additional Registrar (Judicial) Abbas, provided copies of the decision made by the practice and procedure committee and formed under Article 191A of the Constitution. –

He informed the court that the practice and procedure committee called for a meeting on January 17 and withdrew the cases from the majority of the decision of the majority and sent them to the second committee.

After that, the latter met the same day and directed that all matters challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment and the law of the law be decided on January 26 before the Constitution Bench.