Not fixing case before regular bench: SC issues contempt notice to additional registrar judicial

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) issued contempt notice to SC Additional Registrar Judicial for not fixing a matter related to interpretation of law before the regular bench, despite the judicial order.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, and comprising Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi on Monday heard an appeal of the federation through Revenue Division against the Sindh High Court (SHC)’s decision to strike down Section 221-A (2) of the Customs Act, 1969.

Last week, the SC was supposed to deliberate on a recurring question about whether regular benches could hear matters involving the constitutionality of laws, following the establishment of the Constitutional Bench under the 26th Amendment. However, at a January 16 hearing, the bench deferred the case until January 20 (today).

The court ordered the Additional Registrar Judicial to appear in person and provide an explanation.

At the outset of the proceeding, Barrister Salahuddin, representing the respondents, informed the bench that he has come from Karachi, but the case is not fixed.

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 was scheduled for hearing.

When the hearing resumed, after a brief adjournment, the 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 is fixed for hearing before a constitutional bench on January 27.

Justice Mansoor raised concerns over a lack of transparency in case scheduling, saying that he was unaware of a judges’ committee meeting despite being a member.

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, addressing the deputy registrar, said 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.

The bench stated that it had ordered the case to be scheduled before the same bench. The court noted that the case cause-list was not issued that day and that the additional registrar was absent due to health issues.

It was 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.

Justice Mansoor questioned; “If the committee order was not received then why was the case not scheduled?” “How can a scheduled case be transferred to the Constitutional Bench,” asked Justice Ayesha. Justice Aqeel remarked; “No one, including the chief justice, has the authority to transfer a case,” adding that similar attempts were made when he was at the SHC.

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 cancelled. The court was told that a research officer has noted that this case be fixed before the constitutional bench. Justice Ayesha remarked that now the research officer would determine which cases should go before the constitutional bench or regular bench, effectively bypassing the judicial order issued by the judges’ committee.

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 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 pleaded in their court.

Justice Mansoor observed that the case was not scheduled before their court or any other court; rather, it had been made to disappear entirely. He stated that if the judges' committee had wanted, it could have reconstituted the entire bench. The case was adjourned until today (Tuesday).

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025