ISLAMABAD – Supreme Court Senior Judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said on Monday that he was unaware of the Judges’ Committee meeting despite being a member of the committee.
Justice Mansoor, who was heading a three-member bench, gave these remarks while hearing a matter regarding the jurisdiction of constitutional and regular benches. Barrister Salahuddin appeared before the bench.
Barrister Salahuddin contended that he had traveled from Karachi, yet the case had not been scheduled for a hearing. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that he would look into the matter and directed Additional Registrar Supreme Court Nazar Abbas to appear and explain why the case had not been scheduled for hearing.
After a brief recess, the hearing resumed.
Deputy Registrar Supreme Court Zulfiqar Ali appeared before the court and informed that a judges’ committee meeting had taken place, where it was decided to schedule the case before the constitutional bench on January 27.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that he was a member of the Judges’ Committee but had no knowledge of the meeting, despite his membership in the committee.
The Deputy Registrar stated that the decision of the Judges’ Committee meeting was attached to the file. Justice Ayesha A. Malik pointed out that the cases had been scheduled before them throughout the week, but those scheduled hearings were changed. She asked for details regarding the changes.
Addressing the Deputy Registrar, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said, “We are sitting in the tea room. Provide us with the minutes of the Judges’ Committee meeting and details on why the cases were rescheduled. Bring the meeting minutes of the Judges’ Committee; inform us, and we will return to the court.”
Subsequently, the Supreme Court adjourned the case hearing until the next day and issued a show-cause notice for contempt of court to the additional registrar judicial, directing him to appear in person and provide an explanation.
The court fixed the hearing as the first case at 9:30am the following day.
The Supreme Court said that an order had been issued to schedule the case for hearing on January 20 at 1pm. The court also directed that the case be scheduled before the same bench.
However, the case was not included in today’s cause list. The Additional Registrar could not appear due to health reasons. The Supreme Court office informed that the Judges’ Committee had scheduled the case before the constitutional bench on January 27. However, the minutes of the meeting in which this decision was made had not yet been received by the office.
The Supreme Court questioned how a judicial order dated January 16 could be ignored. It was further informed that all tax-related cases scheduled before this bench had also been canceled. The court was told that now a research officer would decide which cases should go before the constitutional bench, while the Judges’ Committee had disregarded the judicial order.
Justice Ayesha Malik remarked, “Is a research officer now going to decide where a case should be scheduled?” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked that the case had gone to the Administrative Committee. He added that if Justice Irfan Saadat was busy, another judge could be included in the bench, but the committee had no authority to remove a case from the schedule entirely.
Justice Ayesha A. Malik asserted that the committee had no power to transfer a case. She added that under the 26th Constitutional Amendment, this bench should hear the case as a constitutional bench, and this discussion could have taken place in their courtroom.
Barrister Salahuddin mentioned that there was a previous case related to journalists, where a suo motu notice had been taken. The decision in that case had determined that if a bench referred a matter to the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice would decide on it.
Justice Ayesha A. Malik remarked that she did not understand how a single Chief Justice could be more effective than two or three judges deliberating on the matter. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah stated that the case had not been scheduled before any other court either and had simply disappeared. He added that if the judges’ committee wanted, it could have reconstituted the entire bench.
