Two Judges of the Supreme Court withdrew a notification of contempt issued a week ago against a senior official for not fixing a case related to the jurisdiction of the regular courts.
The decision occurred when a court of two judges, composed of Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Judge Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, pronounced his verdict on the procedure for contempt against the additional Secretary (Judicial) Nazar Abbas, whom the office of the court of the court dismissed on Tuesday.
The contempt notification was issued when a case on whether the regular courts of the SC could determine the constitutionality of article 191a of the Constitution – under which the Constitutional Court was established after the 26th amendment – was not set for a hearing on January 20 as the court ordered.
During today’s hearing, Judge Shah observed: “The court concluded that the additional (judicial) registrar did not deliberately violate the judicial orders.”
He also said that neither the Superior Court found any evidence that demonstrated that the SC official had some personal interest in the case nor did any proof of any “bad intention.”
“There are no indications of bad faith in their actions,” said a 20 -page verdict issued by the court.
Subsequently, the Superior Judge of Puisne announced that the Court would withdraw the notification of the case justified by contempt of the Court against Abbas.
Judge Shah pointed out that the Court deliberated on two issues that had previously been formulated: one on the elimination of a case of a court that had already partially heard and the other on the invalidation of a court order through an administrative order.
Responding to the first question, Judge Shah said that the court concluded that such a case could not withdraw from the court or eliminate himself from the list. On the second, he pointed out that a court order cannot be annulled by an administrative order.
“It can be unequivocally sustained that no administrative authority, including committees constituted by virtue of article 2 of the Law and article 191a of the Constitution, may, through an administrative order, undo the effect of a court order,” said the judgment of the judgment of the court.
Meanwhile, the Court sent the matter to the President of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (CJP), Yahya Afridi, to deliberate if a court was needed in full to decide whether they were necessary procedures for contempt against two committees of the Superior Court.
Last week, the Registrar Muhammad Salem Khan explained that the case was not solved on January 20 due to two decisions: that of the regular committee constituted under article 2 of the Law of Procedures and Practices of the SC and the Constitutional Committee created in Virtue of article 191 (a). ) (4) of the Constitution.
Today’s order said: “We found that it was the administrative decisions of the committees that illegally annulled the judicial orders and illegally deprived the ordinary hall of their judiciary to decide the jurisdictional issue that was raised.”
The court also said that “the matter has to continue against the members of the two committees” who had withdrawn the case of the regular court.
However, by qualifying the matter as serious and “that justifies the collective and institutional deliberation” of all the judges of the Supreme Court, the Court stressed: “The judicial property and decorum require that this issue be considered and decided by the Court in the Court in full”.
Then he sent the request to form a court in full to CJP Afridi.
In addition, the judges ordered that the main case during which the issue of jurisdiction had been raised to be resolved before the original court of three members who were listening to it, composed of Judges Shah, Ayesha A. Malik and Irfan Saadat Khan, in the First week. February.
The issue of jurisdiction arose on January 13, when a court of three judges headed by Judge Shah heard the Federal Government’s request against the decision of the Superior Court of Sindh to repeal article 221-A (2) of the Law of Customs of 1969. The plaintiff had argued that the regular court could not know the case because it implied challenges of the constitutionality of the laws.
During previous hearings, in which there were also some changes in the court, the Supreme Court had appointed four high -level lawyers as Amici Curiae to help the court.
Audience on allegations against amendment 26 was postponed for 3 weeks
In a separate event, a Constitutional Chamber of eight judges, headed by Judge Aminuddin Khan, finally assumed several challenges to the 26th amendment.
The Court issued notices to the defendants on requests requesting the formation of a court in full to know the matter and live transmission of the procedures of the case.
Subsequently, the matter was postponed for three weeks.
Several petitioners, including the Bar Associations of the Superior Courts, had requested the SC to constitute a court in full to hear the matter instead of the Constitutional Court established by virtue of the 26th amendment, which in turn was being challenged.
