ISLAMABAD:The Supreme Court has made it clear that all individuals, including those working within its establishment, are obligated to follow both the Constitution and the law.
The statement was made during contempt proceedings against the additional registrar, who was accused of not fixing a case in accordance with judicial directives.
In a written order, a division bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi, emphasized that under Article 190 of the Constitution, all judicial and executive authorities in Pakistan, including those working within the SC, must aid in enforcing the court’s judicial orders, not merely administrative ones.
Furthermore, in line with Article 5 of the Constitution, it was reiterated that every citizen, including SC staff, is required to abide by the Constitution and the law.
The bench’s ruling pointed out that the validity of the registrarβs explanation, as well as the outcome of the contempt proceedings, depended on resolving several key questions.
During the hearing on January 21, two critical points were raised. The first concerned whether committees formed under Section 2 of the Act and Article 191A of the Constitution had the authority to withdraw cases already assigned to a regular bench, especially when significant constitutional issues were involved.
The second issue was whether these committees could overrule a judicial order that had already scheduled a case for hearing before a regular bench through an administrative order.
The court further discussed the role of the committees in deciding which bench should handle specific cases. At present, the original committee has not been reviewing the jurisdiction of cases.
In its statement on Tuesday, the Supreme Court clarified that in future, all cases falling under Article 191-A of the Constitution would need to be brought before the constitutional bench committee, irrespective of any orders passed by a regular bench.
Counsel for the respondents, Shahid Jamil, argued that all cases pending in the SC should first be examined by the original committee under Section 2 of the 2023 Act. If a dispute arose regarding whether the case should be heard by a constitutional or regular bench, it should be referred to the committee formed under Article 191-A, as specified in Section 2A.
He further asserted that the issue of bench regulation was of great concern and should therefore be considered by a full court, referencing Articles 204(c) and 175(2) of the Constitution. He maintained that an administrative order could not override a judicial order, and any inconsistency between them would render the administrative order invalid.
Munir A Malik, appointed as amicus curiae, raised two crucial points: first, that all cases in the SC should be examined by the committee under Section 2 of the 2023 Act, with referral to the Article 191A committee only when necessary; and second, that judicial orders should not be superseded by administrative ones, as this could undermine judicial independence.
Malik also argued that withdrawing a case from a bench through an administrative order would be unacceptable, and these issues were fundamental to judicial independence, warranting consideration by a full court.
When asked if such an order could be passed in contempt proceedings, Malik confirmed that it was possible since the defense in this case was based on decisions made by the committees on January 17, 2025.
Attorney General Mansoor Awan noted that the amicus curiae appointed a day earlier had also acted as counsel in cases involving the 26th Constitutional Amendment, but the bench clarified that the current issue was specific to the scope of Section 2 of the 2023 Act, unrelated to the amendment.
The bench appointed additional amici curiae, Ahsan Bhoon and Khawaja Haris Ahmad, and directed the office to make arrangements for their participation, either in person or through video link.
Commenting on the proceedings, lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii expressed concern over the judicial process, highlighting the issue of orders being overridden by administrative decisions. He questioned the validity of having separate committees to decide on case fixations and the role of judicial orders in determining case hearings. Jaferii reflected on similar past actions by previous chief justices, suggesting that the current proceedings should not repeat such practices, calling for justice and transparency in the process.
