On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a show-cause notice to the Additional Registrar Judicial for contempt of court for the scheduling of cases in violation of judicial orders.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, the senior judge presiding over the three-member bench addressing the issue, expressed astonishment at his lack of awareness regarding a Judges Committee meeting, despite his membership in the committee.
The hearing, concentrating on the authority of constitutional benches and normal benches, occurred on Monday.
Barrister Salahuddin presented his concerns on the scheduling of his case before the bench, which included Justice Ayesha Malik. “I traveled from Karachi; however, the case was not slated for a hearing today,” he stated.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah summoned Additional Registrar Nazar Abbas to elucidate the circumstances. Due to bad health, the Additional Registrar’s absence was noted, prompting Deputy Registrar Zulfiqar Ali to advise the court that a Judges Committee meeting had resolved to schedule the case for hearing before the Constitutional Bench on January 27.
Justice Shah interrogates the transparency of the meeting.
Justice Shah conveyed his surprise, remarking, “As a member of the Judges Committee, I was not apprised of the meeting.” Justice Ayesha Malik expressed apprehensions regarding the reassignment of cases without prior notification.
“The cases scheduled for the entire week have been altered without our awareness,” she stated, requesting the specifics of the meeting minutes.
The court instructed the Deputy Registrar to furnish the minutes of the Judges Committee meeting and elucidate the modifications to the case schedule. Justice Shah stated, “We require transparency in the decision-making process regarding case allocations.”
Notice of contempt of court issued
Subsequent to the disclosures, the court issued a show-cause notice to the Additional Registrar Judicial for contempt. The bench mandated his personal appearance on Tuesday to elucidate the circumstances.
The panel also inquired how a research officer might determine case assignments, circumventing judicial directives. “Is it appropriate for a research officer to determine the allocation of cases to specific benches?” Justice Malik stated. Justice Shah stated, “The Judges Committee lacks the authority to supersede judicial orders or to reallocate cases indiscriminately.”
The court noted that its prior directive, issued on January 16, explicitly mandated the case to be heard on January 20 at 1 pm by the same bench. Notwithstanding this, the case was transferred to the Constitutional Bench without the consultation of the sitting judges.
Justice Malik remarked that such issues should have been deliberated in court instead of being resolved unilaterally by the committee. She also interrogated the justification for consolidating decision-making authority in the hands of a sole Chief Justice. “I fail to comprehend how a single Chief Justice can surpass the collective wisdom of two or three individuals,” she stated.
The hearing was postponed until Tuesday at 9:30 am, with the court underscoring the necessity of complying with judicial directives. Justice Shah stated, “The committee’s actions subvert the judiciary’s authority,” noting that the sudden transfer of the case seemed to be an effort to marginalize the bench.
