A Division Bench from the Supreme Court has released its additional registrar for contempt fees, but noted that both SC committees responsible for listing cases before ordinary and constitutional benches “illegally” withdrew a case from the bench and are responsible for contempt of court.

Interestingly, the committee is responsible for listing cases before ordinary benches of SC

The three-member committee responsible for listing cases for the constitutional bench (CB) includes justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.

The bench consisting of justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi on Monday issued his written order in a disdain for trial initiated against additional registrar (judicial) Nazar Abbas.

The bench released the Show Cause message to ABBAS over the alleged contempt of court after a lot of cases in which Vires of Custom Act, 1969 was contested, was withdrawn from the bench and was referred to the CB Committee for re-list.

The court noted that by examining the case, it found that Abbas did not deliberately avoid the list of the cases for the bench as directed in the judicial decision.

“There is no evidence of suggesting that he had any personal interest in the case or had associated with any of the parties in the case, nor did he act for the purpose of causing harm to any of the parties in the case. There is no indication of Mala Fide intention in his actions.

“In the absence of such factors or elements of accountity, his behavior cannot be considered inconsistent, nor can it be said to have suffered from Mala Fides, which requires contempt cases.

“For these reasons, by accepting his explanation, the show, which was issued against him for contempt, is discharged,” it said.

The court noted that it also discussed the question of whether, following the discharge of the show of the show reason against the extra justice secretary (judicial), should be considered as completed or whether it should proceed against the members of the two committees.

The bench said that the first committee led by CJ Afridi “illegally” withdrew cases of part of a bench and transferred it to the treatment of the second committee through an administrative order by undoing the impact of a court decision.

“While the second committee, in total ignoring the judicial order, adopted by the ordinary bench, only in accordance with the direction of the first committee, went ahead and laid the case for the constitutional bench on January 27, 2025.

“Both committees were not legally authorized to make administrative decisions dated January 17, 2025 in violation of the legal order,” it added.

In this background, it said, it seems that the case should move on to the members of the two committees. “However, judicial prosperity and decorum require that the said question be considered and decided by the full court of the Supreme Court, so it is authoritatively decided once and for all,” it added.

The bench made it clear that it did not refer the case to the committee, which was constituted in accordance with section 2 of the law on practice and procedure, 2023, as its authority is limited to bench

“The full court of the Supreme Court, however, is composed of the Constitution itself in accordance with Article 176. The difference between benches in a court and the full court is well established and constitutionally recognized in the provisions of Article 203J (2) © and (d) of the Constitution and Responsibility for Called into the full court falling conventionally within CJ’s domain.

Division Bench Order also noted that no one has the right to obey or reject compliance with the judicial decision simply because he believes it is contrary to the Constitution and the law.

“When a bench is seized by a case and partly heard it, the case becomes part of litigation and the bench that hears the case assumes exclusive jurisdiction over it.

“Any intervention – whether through withdrawal or allocation – without legal justification undermining the principle of legal independence,” said it

After revealing the verdict, a six-member larger bench that heard the extra Justice Secretary’s Intra-Court Appel against the show, issued by the Shah LED bench by ICA.

During the procedure, however, the head of the bench asked Jamal Khan Mandokhail how an order was issued when the contempt procedure was terminated.

“The verdict [of Shah led bench] Includes Chief Justice among the alleged benefits. Will those who are charged with contempt form the full court? “He asked.

Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that the contempt of the Court of Justice establishes a complete procedure that first includes issuing a message.

“Everyone in the world is entitled to the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A. Are judges held as confidant who are not entitled to the protection of Article 10-A?”

“Will the full court formed include the four judges charged with contempt? They could have issued a message, and we, the four judges, would have appeared before their court,” he added.

Later, a majority of four judges in the short order declared that the appeal within court be disposed of with detailed reasons for being delivered later.

However, two judges, justice at have Minallah and justice Shahid Waheed, only agreed on the extent of disposing of the case, but disagreed with most of four judges to issue detailed reasons.