Actions of SC regular bench in contempt case challenged – Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: The federal government on Monday alleged that an SC bench, headed by senior puisne judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, ‘overreached the jurisdiction’ in contempt matter, undermining the Supreme Court’s (Practice and Procedure Act) committee and thus disrupting the handling of constitutional cases.

In an intra-court appeal filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003, the federal government challenged the jurisdiction and actions of the bench, headed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, in a case involving constitutional interpretation and contempt proceedings.

The appeal arises from an SC order in the contempt proceedings where the court discharged a show-cause notice issued against Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas.

The law secretary, representing the federation, expressed dissatisfaction over the court decision, arguing that the order overreached the court’s contempt jurisdiction under Article 204.

Govt accuses Justice Mansoor-led SC bench of undermining constitutional committee

The federation raised several critical legal questions in its appeal. It questioned “whether the court exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing issues beyond the scope of the contempt proceedings, particularly in relation to the powers of committees constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, and Article 191A(4) of the Constitution?

“Whether a regular bench of the Supreme Court can assume the jurisdiction of a constitutional bench, especially in light of the Constitution (26th Amendment) Act, 2024, which limits the regular bench’s authority to examine constitutional amendments?

“Whether the court indirectly reviewed the constitutionality of the 26th Amendment while determining its jurisdiction to hear the case, a move the federation argues is impermissible under Article 175 of the Constitution.”

On Jan 13, the case was initially heard by a three-member bench, where objections were raised regarding the bench’s jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges.

The matter was first adjourned to Jan 27. However, one of the judges recused himself from hearing the matter after which the case was rescheduled to Jan 20. The bench declared the matter “part heard” and specified the composition of the bench for the next hearing.

Meanwhile, a committee meeting held under the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, decided that the case should be referred to a constitutional bench as per Article 191A(4).

However, the bench, headed by Justice Shah, questioned the additional registrar (judicial) about the fixing of the case, leading to contempt proceedings against him.

On Jan 27, the court discharged the show-cause notice in the contempt proceedings, prompting the federation to file the current appeal.

The federation in its appeal argued that the court’s order undermined the authority of the committees established under the SC (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, and Article 191A(4). It contended that the court actions not only rendered these committees redundant but also disrupted the mechanism for handling constitutional cases. The federation requested the Supreme Court to set aside the impugned order of Jan 27.

Published in Dawn, February 25th, 2025