Further Justice Secretary Nazar Abbas has contested a message of showing cause for contempt before the Supreme Court.
In response to the message, the Supreme Court has put together a six-member larger bench to hear Nazar Abbas’ legal appeal reported Express News.
The bench is led by justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and includes justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice ATHER MINALLAH, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Musarrat Hilali.
The registrar has also submitted a plea seeking a stay on the contempt that began against him.
The Supreme Court has planned the consultation for Monday, January 27 at 1 p.m. 13.00. The case, which has drawn considerable attention, will be heard by the newly created larger bench.
Earlier this week, SC reserved its verdict in disdain for the trial against additional registrar Nazar Abbas regarding the Bench Powers case.
A two-judge bench heard the case where Abbas was accused of failing to plan a hearing for the benches.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, chairman of the two-member bench with Justice Aqeel Abbasi, raised concern during the consultation and questioned the committee’s authority to withdraw cases during legal review.
Justice Shah observed, “Prima Facie, the Judge Committee ignored a court decision. While the contempt procedure could be initiated, we will not issue a message in this case.”
The course affected broader constitutional principles, including the extent of Article 191-A in the Constitution, which governs the role and autonomy of the judiciary.
Hamid Khan, who was named Amicus Curiae of the Point Court, claimed that the committee’s actions were not only procedurally defective, but also incompatible with constitutional protective measures.
“The Constitution does not allow some judges to have more powers than others. Such a practice undermines the spirit of equality and legal independence,” he claimed.
Justice Shah noted that the question of whether Pakistan or a committee’s head of justice has the exclusive authority to form a full court remains central.
He added that if the committee ignored a court decision, the issue might justify reference to a full court court.
Justice Aqeel Abbasi noted potential confusion about the judges’ jurisdiction and procedural boundaries.
He emphasized the need to tackle ambiguities in the Supreme Court rules in 1980, which defines the framework for the formation of legal benches.
Hamid Khan also claimed that the committee’s withdrawal of the case was contrary to constitutional procedures, emphasizing that any such decision should adapt to Article 191-A.
However, he acknowledged that the committee could have the administrative authority to grant cases in certain circumstances.
The court also heard arguments from the lawyer Mansoor Usman Awan, who emphasized the need for legal restraint.
He suggested that any procedural mistakes should be resolved without undermining the institutional integrity of the judiciary.
Justice Shah drew attention to a related precedent involving former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa, where a similar redistribution of cases raised questions about legal autonomy.
“If a court decision can be disregarded by an administrative committee, it sets a dangerous precedent for judicial independence,” he noted.
The Read Attorney recommended to refer the case to Pakistan’s Chief Justice for a final decision on whether a full court is needed.
He argued that the contempt procedure was unjustified in this case and that the judging committee acted within its administrative duties
