Govt challenges SC contempt case ruling

The federal government has challenged the January 27 order of a Supreme Court bench in a contempt of court case.

On January 27, a division bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi issued a written order in contempt proceedings against Supreme Court Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas.

The bench issued a show-cause notice to Abbas after a series of cases challenging the vires of the Customs Act, 1969, were withdrawn from the bench and referred back to a three-member committee of the Supreme Court's constitutional bench (CB) for re-listing.

Upon reviewing the matter, the court noted that Abbas did not deliberately avoid listing the cases before the bench, as previously directed. Consequently, he was exonerated.

However, the bench observed that both Supreme Court committees responsible for assigning cases to regular and constitutional benches had "illegally" withdrawn the cases from the bench. The court ruled that these committees were liable for contempt of court.

Interestingly, the committee responsible for listing cases before regular benches of the SC comprise CJ Yahya Afridi, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aminuddin Khan

The three-member committee responsible for listing cases before the constitutional bench includes Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.

"Both the committees were not legally authorized to take administrative decisions dated 17 January 2025 in violation of the judicial order," it added. In this background, it said, it appeared that the matter had to proceed further against the members of the two committees.

"However, judicial propriety and decorum demand that the said question be considered and decided by the Full Court of the Supreme Court so that it is authoritatively decided once and for all," it added.

Now the federal government has filed an intra-court appeal in the SC, requesting the annulment of the January 27 decision. In the appeal, it has been requested that the verdict issued by the division bench on January 27 be declared null and void.

The appeal argues that the bench exceeded its jurisdiction in exercising contempt of court powers. It states that after issuing a show-cause notice to the additional registrar, the court proceedings had concluded, and the bench had no authority to issue such an order.

It contends that a constitutional bench had already revoked and annulled the orders issued on January 13 and 16. By taking up the case themselves, the division bench effectively assumed the powers of the Judges' Constitutional Committee.

The appeal argues that after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, a regular bench cannot hear cases related to constitutional and legal interpretation. It claims that the regular division bench exceeded its jurisdiction in this matter.