A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has reserved its decision on whether a matter related to the Practice and Procedure Act (PPA) should be referred to a full court. During the hearing, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah raised the question of whether the committee formed under the PPA could be held in contempt for not complying with a judicial order. He emphasized that failure to follow a judicial order could lead to severe consequences.
Justice Shah, who was leading the bench, stated that while the court has the authority to issue contempt notices, it would refrain from doing so in this case, as it involves the office of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) and other senior judges who are part of the committee. The bench, which also included Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, is deliberating on whether the case should be referred to the full Supreme Court or remain with the current bench.
The bench posed two critical questions: first, whether the two committees established under the PPA and Article 191A of the Constitution can withdraw a case from a regular bench hearing serious constitutional issues; and second, whether these committees can, through administrative orders, override judicial orders setting a hearing date before a regular bench.
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan argued that under Rule 27 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, this bench cannot refer the matter to the full court, as it is not a properly constituted bench. He suggested that the case should be sent to the CJP to determine whether contempt proceedings should proceed. Additionally, he pointed out that if the court finds a deficiency in the PPA, Article 191A does not prevent the full court from addressing the issue on the administrative side, not the judicial side.
Amicus curiae Ahsan Bhoon argued that referring the case to the full court through a judicial order was inappropriate. He emphasized that the constitutional bench, not this bench, should handle the matter under Article 191A(3). If there were any conflicts, he suggested, the issue should be referred to the CJP for further consideration. Bhoon warned that issuing judicial orders to refer matters to the full court could lead to chaos.
Justice Shah explained that the court’s goal was to preserve the judiciary as an institution. Bhoon, however, cautioned that many individuals sought to control the courts, and the situation should not be treated as an opportunity to push personal agendas.
Bhoon further noted that the committee’s decision to withdraw the case and place it before the constitutional bench was constitutionally valid, as the PPA had been upheld by the full court. He referenced Article 190, which instructs all executive authorities to assist the Supreme Court, and clarified that in this context, the term “executive” should be understood differently.
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, another amicus, argued that the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 and the Constitution do not permit such issues to be addressed through contempt proceedings. He explained that the power to constitute benches rests with the two committees established under the PPA, as per the 26th Amendment. The fixation of the case before the bench violated Article 191A(3) and (4) of the Constitution, and any withdrawal by the committee was not an administrative action overriding a judicial order but a lawful action under the Constitution.
Haris further argued that the January 16 judicial order was made in error, and in this case, the law and Constitution should take precedence over a flawed judicial order.
