ISLAMABAD – The federal government on Tuesday decided to challenge the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the formation of a full court in the contempt of court case against Additional Registrar Judicial Nazar Abbas.
Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan informed the constitutional bench about the federal government’s stance on the decision.
During the hearing of the customs regulatory duty case in the Supreme Court, the Attorney General stated that the government would challenge the order and deem it unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court had issued a verdict in the contempt case against Additional Registrar Nazar Abbas, saying that both the Practice and Procedure Committee and the Judges’ Constitutional Committee had overlooked the judicial order.
A SC two-member bench comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Abbasi ruled that Nazar Abbas had not willfully committed contempt of court. The court withdrew the show-cause notice against him and referred the matter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan.
The verdict stated that the Practice and Procedure Committee lacked the authority to withdraw a case despite a judicial order, and neither did the Judges’ Constitutional Committee have the power to override a judicial order through an administrative decision.
It was determined that Nazar Abbas had made no error, did not deliberately neglect fixing the case, had no personal interest in the matter, and his actions did not indicate malice. Hence, his conduct did not fall under contempt of court.
Accepting Nazar Abbas’s clarification, the court dropped the contempt proceedings. However, it emphasized that only a full court could determine whether the judges’ committees had ignored a judicial order. A previous ruling by a 14-member bench on a similar matter was also referenced.
The court directed the Chief Justice of Pakistan to constitute a full court under Article 175(6) of the Constitution to deliberate on this issue.
Additionally, it ordered that the customs case be scheduled before the same three-member bench that had initially heard it.
The judgment further examined whether the matter should be considered settled after the contempt notices were withdrawn or if further action should be taken against the members of the two committees involved.
It was observed that the first committee had unlawfully transferred pending cases from one bench to another through an administrative order, undermining the judicial directive.
Meanwhile, the second committee, disregarding the judicial order, scheduled the case before the constitutional bench for January 27, 2025, solely based on the first committee’s instructions.
The ruling held that the both committees had violated the court’s directive on January 17, 2025, by making unauthorized administrative decisions.
Given this context, the court suggested further action against the committee members. However, maintaining judicial decorum, it recommended that the issue be resolved by a full court for a conclusive and authoritative decision.
The verdict recalled that a 14-judge bench was formed for a contempt case against a high court registrar, underscoring that the present matter is of even greater significance, warranting collective and institutional consideration by all Supreme Court judges.
Therefore, the court referred the matter to the Chief Justice for the formation of a full court to deliberate and rule on this crucial issue.
The court clarified that the matter was not referred to the committee established under Section 2 of the Act, as its authority is limited to the formation of Supreme Court benches.
The distinction between court benches and the full court is recognized under Articles 203J (2)(c) and (d) of the Constitution, and traditionally, the responsibility of convening a full court falls under the Chief Justice’s jurisdiction.
