Unaware of committee meeting despite being a member: Justice Shah

SC demands records of judges’ committee meeting on case scheduling.

Listen to article

Supreme Court judges have raised concerns over a lack of transparency in case scheduling, with Justice Mansoor Ali Shah stating that he was unaware of a judges’ committee meeting despite being a member.

A hearing took place in the Supreme Court regarding the powers of constitutional and regular benches during which Barrister Salahuddin appeared before a three-member bench headed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Express News reported.

Barrister Salahuddin argued that he had come from Karachi, but the case was not scheduled for a hearing that day. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah responded that he would look into the matter and summoned Additional Registrar Supreme Court, Nazar Abbas, to explain why the case had not been scheduled for hearing.

After a brief adjournment, 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 that the case would be scheduled for a hearing before a constitutional bench on January 27.

The deputy registrar stated that the committee’s decision was attached to the case file. Justice Ayesha Malik added that cases scheduled before them for the entire week had been changed, and details regarding these changes should also be provided.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, addressing the Deputy Registrar, said that they were sitting in the tea room and asked for details of the judges' committee meeting minutes and the changes made to the cases. He directed that the meeting minutes be brought before them, and the judges would return to the courtroom.

Later, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing until the next day and issued a show-cause notice to the Additional Registrar Judicial under contempt of court.

The court ordered the Additional Registrar Judicial to appear in person and provide an explanation. It further directed that the case be scheduled as the first hearing at 9:30 AM the next day.

The Supreme Court had earlier instructed that the case be scheduled for hearing on January 20 at 1:00 PM.

The Supreme Court stated that it had ordered the case to be scheduled before the same bench. The court noted that the case’s cause list was not issued that day and that the Additional Registrar was absent due to health issues.

It was further informed by the Supreme Court office that the judges' committee had scheduled the case before a constitutional bench on January 27. However, the office had yet to receive the meeting minutes of the judges' committee where this decision was made.

The apex court questioned how a judicial order dated January 16 could be ignored. It was also informed that all tax-related cases before this bench had been canceled. Additionally, the court was told that a research officer would now determine which cases should go before the constitutional bench, effectively bypassing the judicial order issued by the judges' committee.

Justice Ayesha Malik remarked, "Will a research officer now decide where a case should be scheduled?" Justice Mansoor Ali Shah stated that the case had been transferred to the administrative committee.

He questioned why, if Justice Irfan Saadat was unavailable, another judge could not be assigned to the bench, emphasising that the committee had no authority to prevent a case from being scheduled.

Justice Ayesha Malik further stated that the committee did not have the authority to transfer a case entirely. She added that, under the 26th Constitutional Amendment, this bench should be referred to as a constitutional bench, and this matter could have been debated in their court.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah added that the case was not scheduled before their court or any other court; rather, it had been made to disappear entirely. He further stated that if the judges' committee had wanted, it could have reconstituted the entire bench.