The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict in the contempt of court case against the additional justice secretary Nazar Abbas regarding the bench powers case.

A two-judge bench heard the case, where Abbas was accused of failing to schedule a hearing in the jurisdictional case.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, presiding over the two-member bench along with Justice Aqeel Abbasi, raised concerns during the hearing and questioned the committee’s authority to withdraw cases already under judicial review.

Justice Shah observed, “Prima facie, the Judicial Committee ignored a court order. Although contempt proceedings could be initiated, we will not issue a notice in this case.”

The proceedings touched upon broader constitutional principles, including the scope of Article 191-A of the Constitution, which regulates the role and autonomy of the judiciary.

Hamid Khan, appointed as amicus curiae by the apex court, argued that the committee’s actions were not only procedurally flawed but also in violation of constitutional guarantees.

“The Constitution does not allow some judges to have more powers than others. Such practice undermines the spirit of equality and judicial independence,” he argued.

Justice Shah noted that the question of whether the Chief Justice of Pakistan or a committee has the exclusive authority to form a full court remains central.

He added that if the committee overruled a court order, the matter could warrant referral to a full court for decision.

Justice Aqeel Abbasi noted potential confusion over the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction and procedural boundaries.

He stressed the need to address ambiguities in the Supreme Court Rules of 1980, which define the framework for the formation of judicial benches.

Hamid Khan further argued that the committee’s withdrawal of the case violated constitutional procedures and highlighted that any such decision should be in accordance with Article 191-A.

However, he acknowledged that the committee may have the administrative authority to reassign cases under certain circumstances.

The court also heard arguments from Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan, who stressed the need for judicial restraint.

He suggested that any procedural errors should be addressed 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 reallocation of cases raised questions about judicial autonomy.

“If a court order can be overridden by an administrative committee, it sets a dangerous precedent for judicial independence,” he noted.

The Attorney General recommended referring the case to the Chief Justice of Pakistan for a final decision on whether a full court is necessary.

He argued that contempt proceedings were unwarranted in this case and that the Judicial Committee was acting within its administrative jurisdiction.