Islamabad:

A constitutional bench (CB) from the Supreme Court has drawn on January 16 and on January 16, adopted by a regular bench with regard to clarification of jurisdiction for SC’s regular and constitutional benches during the consultation of a lot of cases that challenge vires in the custom action, 1969.

On Tuesday, a seven member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan resumed and heard the cases previously placed before a regular bench with three members, led by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

On January 17, the Supreme Court Committee, which shows cases before benches, withdrew the cases from the ordinary bench and referred them to the CB Committee for Relist.

This annoyed the ordinary bench that began contempt negotiations against an additional registrar, Nazar Abbas, to have violated its order. Later, on January 27, the bench exempted the official from contempt fees, but noted that the SC committees had committed contempt.

It also ordered to place the cases again before the original bench.

However, the seven member CB, which the case was later erected for consultation, withdrew the ordinary bench orders dated January 13 and January 16 Tuesday.

During the hearing, the lawyer for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan said the government has decided to challenge the contempt of the Judicial Decision from Justice Shah led the bench.

“An appeal will be filed against the contempt of the court decision on the previous day, and it has been decided to challenge Justice’s orders from January 13 and January 16,” he said.

During the hearing, justice noted Muhammad Ali Mazhar that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah had ordered customs cases to be placed before his bench. He questioned whether the CB procedure could continue in the presence of this order.

Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned the legitimacy of the ordinary bench’s order in contempt of the case.

“This is also a court. Life is unpredictable, but the Supreme Court and other courts will remain. We have to look after our institution. No one should worry; nothing will happen to this institution,” he added.

Justice Mazhar expressed surprise and said that the order on January 16 said the case should be “considered heard.” He questioned the origin of the term and noted that either a case is heard or that it is not. “Where did the term ‘considered to be heard’ came from? ‘ He asked.

AGP Awan said he had two orders from January 13th. “One specified the next consultation date as January 27, while the other stated January 16. The consultation date had been changed in the order,” he said.

Justice Mazhar also said it was unclear how, without serving AGP a message under Rule 27-A, it was stated that the case should be considered heard.

Then, CB issued an order to link the record of the Nazarian ABBAS disdain for the trial with the Customs Service and postponed the hearing indefinitely.

A member of the bench, Justice Ayesha Malik, repeated himself from hearing the case. In a note that was posted after the hearing, she said she would not like to hear these cases to “protect and preserve the holiness of the original procedure and the judicial order of January 16”.