ICA of SC additional registrar: Justice Mansoor objects to constitution of larger bench by committee

ISLAMABAD: Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah objected to the constitution of a larger bench by the Committee, formed under Section 2(1) of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 for hearing of Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) of Additional Registrar against the show-cause notice in contempt of court.

A two-member bench, comprising Justice Mansoor and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi on Thursday had reserved judgment on the contempt of court notice.

In his note to the Committee through WhatsApp, Justice Mansoor wrote that after the meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan yesterday (Thursday), the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) called an informal meeting of the Committee in his Chambers, comprising the CJP, him and Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. It was agreed that a larger bench be constituted to hear the Intra-Court Appeal in the matter.

“I recommended for constitution of larger bench comprising five judges in order of seniority, excluding who cannot hear the said ICA due to conflict of interest. The chief justice expressed that he would like a four-member bench in the matter and the meeting ended there.

“Later at night, I received a WhatsApp message at 9:33 from my secretary seeking approval regarding proposed six-member bench, for approval as a member of the Committee. I told my secretary that I will attend to it tomorrow as I have some objections. However, at 10:28 pm, I was informed by my secretary that the bench stood constituted and the roster has been issued by the majority decision of the Committee. My objection to this hurriedly constituted larger bench is;

“The judges who have conflict of interest in the matter cannot sit on the bench. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar are the members of the Committee constituted under clause (4) of Article 191A of the Constitution. The said Committee took up the matter of CPLA 836/ 2020 and fixed it on 27-01-2025 before the constitutional bench as the decisions of both the Committees are in question in the contempt proceedings.

“I did not get a chance to record my opinion on the file as the actual file was never sent to my office and the majority itself decided the matter and issued the roster. Therefore, I want this note to be placed on the record of the decision of the Committee dated 23-01-2025 constituting the larger bench.”

Meanwhile, SC Additional Registrar Nazar Abbas expressed dissatisfaction in his ICA which he had filed against the two-judge bench order dated 21-01-2025. He raised four questions in his appeal.

A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Mansoor and Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi on 13-01-25 heard federation’s appeal against the Sindh High Court’s decision to strike down Section 221-A (2) of the Customs Act, 1969. It raised objections as to the jurisdiction of the regular bench to hear the appeal. However, the bench adjourned the case until 16-01-2025 to determine the jurisdiction of the regular bench to hear the appeal.

The ICA mentioned that initially the order dated 13-01-2025 when sent to the webmaster it reflected 27-01-2025 as the next date of hearing which was shortly thereafter changed by and another order that reflected the next date of hearing as 16-01-2025 was forwarded to the webmaster.

On 16-01-2025 recused from the bench saying he had authored the impugned judgment. Consequently, the case was adjourned until 20-01-2025. When on 20-01-25 the bench assembled for hearing the matter it was informed to the bench by advocate Salahuddin Ahmed one of respondents’ counsel that the case has not been fixed before the bench. It therefore on 20-01-25 issued show-cause notice Nazar Abbas and initiated the contempt of Court proceedings against him.

He submitted that the constitution of Benches or approval of the Roster is beyond the capacity as well as jurisdiction of the Appellant. The responsibility of the Appellant, at the most, is to apprise the Competent Authority to the non-availability of any appropriate Bench, which has not only been conveyed before time but also has been suggested to be met with by formation of Special Bench so there is no lapse on the part of the Appellant in the whole scenario.

Nazar explained that act of the office regarding non-fixation of the case before the Bench, was neither deliberate nor wilful, it was in pursuance of the decisions taken by the two Committees.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025