Islamabad:
Islamabad High Court (IHC) has begun the contempt procedure against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his entire cabinet to disregard its order not to give reasons not to help an American court hearing the case of the prison neuroscientist dr. Aafia Siddiqui.
“Since the government has not returned with the reasons despite being corrected to do so, it is in contempt, which leaves me nothing but issuing a message of contempt to the federal government.
“The office is referred to initiate a contempt petition accordingly, where all members of the federal government will be respondents. The answers from all ministers, including the prime minister, are filed within two weeks of today,” said a three-page order author of Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan.
The judge noted that in his last order he had given the government time to return with his decision while warning the state lawyer that passivity would result in contempt negotiations.
On July 15, the federal government turned to the Supreme Court and tried to overthrow on May 16, 2025, IHC’s order, enabling changes to a previously settled petition on Dr. Aafia Siddiqui – almost a decade after its lodging. However, SC has not yet stated the petition for consultation.
Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan was going on a summer vacation from Monday (July 21). However, he had announced during the last hearing that he would hear the case on July 21.
Interestingly, IHC did not indicate the case for consultation before his bench. Nevertheless, the judge heard the case Monday and later issued a blistering order that criticized the IHC High Court Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and the entire “demolition group catapulated to” IHC after the 26th change.
Justice Khan noted that the leave plan was announced much earlier to the date he had ordered to list this case today, considering its importance and the need for rapid exemption of justice
“Thursday or maybe Friday I was informed through my PS [personal secretary] of the office that the causal list is not issued unless the list of the sitting judges this week was changed by leave by Chief Justice.
“It seemed to me a trivial case, and I asked my PS to move an application accordingly.
“Whether it was in design or supervision, I cannot say with certainty, but given the way the judging list has been used as a tool for the desired result in specific cases, and given the stiff resistance of the government to do what is right and to stand by the nation’s daughter at the critical time of the movement of an American court, I can be forgiven to think that it was in the past.”
He said the government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against his previous decision that allows changes to the petition to continue this case, but SC did not take up the case.
“[So] Machinations of the Executive appeared elsewhere in the form of checking this trial through its list.
“The legal historians would write it now, even though he wants to because of imperatives of urgent justice, a judge is now not allowed to hold the court at the right -wing institution when he is on leave.”
He said the correct legal attitude is that the office cannot use CJ’s shoulder in the exercise of administrative powers to prevent litigation ordered by a judge.
He said that a judge’s motivation to hold the court on a day when he is officially ‘on leave would print whether the reason for keeping the court was any external motive or exemption of justice.
“I trust that all real thinkers and women would agree with me that my decision to keep the court was solely and solely for the purpose of exemption of justice.
He said Gone was the days when a judge could adopt an order even while playing golf or eating with his family if it required it. The ceremony of clothes and a courtroom – or the many triviality on a causal list, since in this case never were the indispensable prerequisites for him to perform judicial business.
“This is yet another example of the blaming use of the administrative power to strike the exercise of independent judicial authority with the probable motivation to pend (until my leave ends) the government’s response with reasons why it would not sign the Amicus brief.
“However, the imperatives of justice must not be defeated with such small funds. To the extent that I can, I will exercise my judicial authority to the end of maintaining the dignity of the Supreme Court and the righteousness it provides,” he added. The bench resumes to hear the case on September 1st.
