ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, on Thursday, sought the IHC rules to determine whether the chief justice has authority to withdraw case from a bench.
Hearing contempt of court proceedings initiated after removal of Mishal Yousafzai case from the cause list of his court, he directed the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to present the high court rules to determine whether the chief justice has the authority to withdraw a case from a bench.
Justice Ejaz raised a key question, saying that whether forming a larger bench and conducting judicial proceedings without explicitly addressing prior office objections is legally valid. He said that a final judgment on this issue is necessary; stressing that there is no legal provision for transferring a case in such a manner.
Removal of case from cause list: IHC judge initiates court contempt proceedings
The judge further said that if a high court judge had not made this decision of transfer of case, it could have amounted to criminal contempt of court. However, he clarified that he would not issue a contempt notice, stressing that the case is about setting a legal precedent rather than focusing on a political party leader.
The Advocate General (AG) Islamabad, Ayaz Shaukat, sought permission to present his argument, saying that he should be allowed to speak just as the court had expressed its views the previous day. He asserted; “If this high court exists, it is because of us and everyone knows you are not here just for a job or salary.”
He argued that the primary issue was whether Yousafzai remained the legal representative of the PTI founder or not. He cited a media statement by the PTI founder’s focal person claiming that Yousafzai was no longer his lawyer.
However, Justice Ejaz said the court was not concerned with Yousafzai’s status but rather whether a case pending before a bench could be transferred in such a manner.
Shaukat contended that due to the controversy, all related cases were consolidated before a larger bench. However, Justice Ejaz countered that if the issue was simply about verifying Yousafzai’s status as legal counsel, a commission had already been appointed to resolve it.
The judge said you could have arranged the meeting, and this matter would have been settled in 30 seconds. Instead, you dragged the court into this situation. He added that when a lawyer appears before the court claiming to represent a client, the court does not routinely summon the client to verify the claim. “Hundreds of petitions are filed before us. Do we summon clients to confirm their lawyer’s representation each time?” he questioned.
Justice Ejaz also highlighted the procedural requirements for merging cases or forming a larger bench. He noted that the presiding judge of the case must submit a written request to the chief justice, who then issues an order.
He questioned whether the parties had been heard before the formation of the larger bench under Section 24, which is typically used for transferring cases from subordinate courts.
The judge mentioned that the Registrar’s Office initially objected, saying that the Section 24 application was invalid. The chief justice, while agreeing with the objection, still proceeded to form a larger bench.
The judge then asked the AG whether he planned to present arguments before the larger bench on the contempt of court petition, as contempt cases are typically heard by the judge whose order was violated.
He also clarified that the applicant had not insisted on transferring cases to the larger bench, yet the request was still accepted. He also said that this is not about creating further complications for the High Court. He maintained, “I do not want to leave behind any unpleasant situation for myself or my colleagues. The credibility and prestige of the Islamabad High Court matter the most to me.”
The bench directed the advocate general to maintain a clear and consistent stance before the larger bench, stating that he could not adopt conflicting positions in different courtrooms.
Later, he deferred hearing of the case after Eid holidays.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments