The Supreme Court on Monday issued a show-cause notice to the Additional Registrar Judicial for contempt of court over the scheduling of cases without adhering to judicial orders.
Senior judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah who heads the three-member bench hearing the matter - expressed surprise at being unaware of a Judges Committee meeting despite being a member of the committee.
The hearing, which focused on the powers of constitutional benches and regular benches, was held on Monday.
Barrister Salahuddin appeared before the bench, which also included Justice Ayesha Malik, and raised concerns about the scheduling of his case. "I came from Karachi, but the case was not scheduled for hearing today," he said.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah summoned Additional Registrar Nazar Abbas to explain the situation. When the Additional Registrar failed to appear due to ill health, Deputy Registrar Zulfiqar Ali informed the court that a Judges Committee meeting had decided to fix the case for hearing before the Constitutional Bench on January 27.
Justice Shah questions meeting transparency
Justice Shah expressed his astonishment, stating, "I am a member of the Judges Committee, yet I was not informed about the meeting." Justice Ayesha Malik also raised concerns about the reshuffling of cases without notice.
"Cases scheduled for the entire week have been changed without our knowledge," she said, demanding details of the meeting minutes.
The court directed the Deputy Registrar to provide the minutes of the Judges Committee meeting and clarify the changes made to the case schedule. "We need transparency in how decisions are being made about case allocations," remarked Justice Shah.
Contempt of court notice issued
Following the revelations, the court issued a show-cause notice to the Additional Registrar Judicial for contempt of court. The bench directed him to appear in person on Tuesday to explain the situation.
The bench also questioned how a research officer could decide case allocations, bypassing judicial orders. "Should a research officer now decide which case goes to which bench?" Justice Malik remarked. Justice Shah added, "The Judges Committee has no authority to override judicial orders or reassign cases arbitrarily."
The court observed that its earlier directive, issued on January 16, had clearly ordered the case to be heard on January 20 at 1 pm by the same bench. Despite this, the case was moved to the Constitutional Bench without consulting the presiding judges.
Justice Malik stated that such matters could have been discussed in court rather than decided unilaterally by the committee. She also questioned the rationale behind concentrating decision-making power in the hands of a single Chief Justice. "I do not understand how one Chief Justice can be better than two or three minds," she remarked.
The hearing was adjourned until Tuesday at 9:30 am, with the court emphasizing the importance of adhering to judicial orders. "The committee's actions undermine the judiciary's authority," Justice Shah remarked, adding that the case’s abrupt transfer appeared to be an attempt to sideline the bench.
