Court officials: Disciplinary action can precede contempt proceedings: IHC

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has declared that judges cannot initiate contempt proceedings against court officials if the disciplinary proceedings can be started.

A larger bench of the IHC comprising Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Inam Ameen Minhas, on Monday, issued the order on appeals against the contempt of court proceeding against Registrar Sardar Tahir Sabir and Deputy Registrar Security Muhammad Owais ul Hassan.

The bench quashed the show-cause notices.

The order said where the disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the employees, the more appropriate way is to proceed with initiation of such and not the contempt proceedings, adding when there is no judicial or administrative order, contempt of court proceedings cannot be instituted against the appellants.

Justice Sattar had initiated the contempt proceedings against the IHC officials over their failure to maintain order during the lawyers strike on May 9 last year.

The contempt proceedings were initiated on the complaint of lawyer Naeem Bukhari who accused the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) president of forcibly restraining the lawyers from entering the premises.

Later, the directions of the contempt proceedings were diverted towards the registrar and deputy registrar for allegedly misleading the court. Both the officers challenged the contempt proceedings through intra-court appeals.

It was the stance of appellants that no contempt is made out in the facts and circumstances inasmuch as there was no obstruction on part of legal community to approach this court. It was argued that both appellants were employees of the IHC and in case, there was any dereliction of duty, the matter ought to have been reported to the chief justice and placed before the administration committee, but that did not call for initiation of contempt proceedings.

It was also contended that no mis-statement was made and the appellants cannot even think of the same, hence question of perjury or explanation, does not arise. The appellants maintained that if there is dereliction in duty, the appropriate course is to proceed in disciplinary proceedings rather than initiate contempt.

The IHC bench observed in the order that the orders passed in the contempt proceeding are appealable…an appeal shall lie as a right, where an order or decision has been passed while exercising jurisdiction qua punishment for contempt.

It added that the Administration Committee (of the IHC) after receiving the inquiry report, did come to the conclusion that there was no hindrance and there is no complaint whatsoever in this regard, hence there was no obstruction in dispensation of justice.

The judgement noted that in case, if any honourable judge of this court did feel that either of the appellants was in dereliction of duty, appropriate course was to refer the matter to the Administration Committee of this court or to the chief justice for inquiring into the same.

It also said that the initiation of contempt proceedings, where there was no administrative or judicial order, cannot form the basis for proceedings against the appellants.

The bench also said that in case, such like actions are taken, where the judges issue contempt notice to the establishment of (a) high court where there is no violation of the order, then that will hamper the free and smooth functioning of the institution.

It further said that there can be dereliction in duty by an employee and appropriate forum is to make a complaint in writing to the competent authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

The bench said that since there was no negligence of the registrar and deputy registrar to maintain order on May 9 last year; therefore, “no contempt is made out” and quashed the contempt of court proceedings.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025