The federal government on Tuesday decided to challenge the order issued by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah regarding the formation of a full court to address the contempt of court case involving senior judge of the Supreme Court and Additional Registrar Judicial Nazar Abbas.
Attorney General of Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan informed the constitutional bench during a hearing in the Customs Regulator Duty case that the government would file a review petition against Justice Mansoor's order.
RELATED: SC announces verdict in contempt of court case against additional registrar
Mr Awan stressed that the government views the decision as unconstitutional and contrary to established judicial norms.
During the hearing, Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that the concern for judicial independence is not limited to a few; it is shared by everyone. "No one should worry; nothing will happen to this institution. Whether we stay or not, the courts will continue to exist. Whatever work we do, it should be done properly. What kind of catastrophe occurred? This is also a court," he stated.
Justice Jamal Mandokhail further remarked that life is unpredictable, but the Supreme Court and the judiciary will remain. "It is our responsibility to take care of this institution. No one should worry; nothing will happen to it."
Justice Aminuddin noted, "An order was issued on January 13, scheduling the hearing for January 27. How did the hearing suddenly get rescheduled for the next day?" Justice Jamal Mandokhail added, "A member of the bench recused themselves. Can a judge, while stepping away, issue an order for the case to be assigned to a specific bench?"
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi questioned, "Did that judge have the authority to reconstitute the bench?" Addressing Barrister Salahuddin, Justice Naeem Afghan commented, "It seems you are responsible for the entire crisis."
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked, "According to the court order, you insisted that a regular bench could hear this case." Justice Jamal Mandokhail then questioned, "Do you not have confidence in us judges? If I am incompetent or unaware of the law, let me know. After the 26th Amendment, this is now the new system. If someone does not like it, that is a separate matter."
The decision to challenge the formation of the full court comes after the Supreme Court issued a verdict in the contempt case, involving the actions of Additional Registrar Judicial Nazar Abbas.
In the ruling, the court found that both the Practice and Procedure Committee and the Judges Constitutional Committee had failed to follow judicial orders in the handling of Abbas's case.
Contempt case verdict
In a 2-1 decision delivered on January 26, 2025, by a bench consisting of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Abbasi, the court ruled that Nazar Abbas did not deliberately commit contempt of court.
The bench held that Abbas had no personal interest in delaying the case fixing and found no malice in his actions. Consequently, the show-cause notice for contempt against Abbas was withdrawn, and the matter was referred to the Chief Justice of Pakistan for further action.
Read also: Constitutional bench seeks response from govt on 26th Amendment
However, the court also observed that the Practice and Procedure Committee, along with the Judges Constitutional Committee, had no authority to withdraw or transfer the case, especially in the presence of an existing judicial order.
The ruling highlighted that these committees had acted outside their constitutional jurisdiction, violating the directives laid down by the Supreme Court in its previous orders.
Full court needed for final resolution
In a crucial aspect of the ruling, the court stated that a full court should decide the matter of whether the committees had ignored judicial orders. Referring to a precedent set by a 14-member bench in a similar case, the ruling underlined the need for a collective and institutional decision.
The bench asserted that only a full court could properly address such significant issues concerning the independence of the judiciary and the respect for judicial orders.
The judgment also emphasised that the Chief Justice of Pakistan must convene a full court to examine the matter thoroughly, by Clause 6 of Article 175 of the Constitution.
The court observed that while the matter could be addressed administratively by a committee, the gravity of the case warranted a broader, collective response from all judges of the Supreme Court.
Attorney general's response
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan informed the constitutional bench that the government would challenge the decision, specifically questioning the formation of a full court in this matter.
The Attorney General cited the constitutional concerns surrounding the formation of such a court and the authority of the committees involved in the administrative actions.
"We will be filing a review petition of Justice Mansoor Ali Shah's orders dated January 13 and 16," Awan said. He emphasized that the federal government considers this to be an issue of constitutional importance, which warranted a deeper judicial review.
During the hearing of the Customs Regulator Duty case, several judges expressed concern over the broader implications of the case for the judiciary’s independence. Justice Jamal Mandokhel, in his remarks, stressed the importance of safeguarding the integrity of the judicial institution. He remarked that while it was important for courts to function properly, the stability of the institution itself must not be compromised, as the judiciary's survival depended on maintaining public trust.
Justice Aminuddin Khan also questioned the sudden scheduling of the hearing for the Customs case on January 27, which was originally set for a later date. He noted that one judge from the three-member bench had left, raising questions about the consistency and integrity of the court’s actions.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, in his comments, pointed out the procedural concerns about whether a single judge had the authority to order that the case be placed before a particular bench, raising further questions regarding judicial authority.
