The Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday directed Additional Registrar Nazar Abbas to submit his reply in writing in contempt of court case against him for not fixing the case of the jurisdiction of the apex court benches for the hearing, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.
“Try to submit your reply today,” Justice Mansoor Ali Shah remarked while addressing Abbas.
The judge further said that the case under review pertained to the Practice and Procedure Committee’s powers, and not to the 26th constitutional amendment.
Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan and the additional registrar appeared in the court.
The AGP, on the occasion, objected to the appointment of court assistants, saying they were the counsels for the petitioners against the 26th amendment.
In order to address his concern, the court also appointed Khawaja Haris and Ahsan Bhoon as court assistants.
Justice Mansoor asked whether the committee of judges had the power to shift the case, which a regular bench was hearing, to the constitutional bench (CB).
The judge further said that the registrar, while defending the additional registrar, said that the case had been referred to the CB by the judges committee.
He went on to say that he had no idea to what extent the additional registrar was to blame for not fixing the case’s hearing.
AGP Awan told the court that he could assist it under 27-A. “Being an attorney general, my stance on a contempt of court case is different,” he said, adding in his opinion the SC’s jurisdiction in these cases is very limited.
Justice Mansoor said all that the bench wanted to know was how the case was referred to another bench.
The AGP told him that under the 26th amendment, it was the constitutional committee, which had the power to form benches.
“Let me make it clear. This case has nothing to do with the amendment you have just referred to,” the judge said.
Munir A. Malik, one of the court assistants, who appeared in the court via a video link, said that an administrative decision could not replace a judicial order. “However, under the Practice and Procedure Act, the matter of the formation of a full-court could be sent to the administrative committee,” he added.
Justice Mansoor inquired from Malik whether the court could give an order in the case under review.
The latter replied in affirmative, adding that the issue should be resolved once and for all since it was connected to the independence of the judiciary.
Malik suggested the constitution of a full court on the matter.
Whether, Justice Mansoor asked, the court could give such an order while hearing a contempt of court case.
The court assistant replied, “Certainly, yes. The court can order the formation of full court.”
Malik went on to say that the constitutional bench was only one component of the apex court. “This is the three-member Practice & Procedure Committee’s job to determine which case will be heard by a regular bench and which by the CB.”
Speaking on the occasion, Advocate Shahid Jameel opined that once a bench was seized with the hearing of a case, it could not be transferred to any other bench.
However, he clarified the case could be transferred in the event of any objection raised.
Justice Mansoor said all cases would first be forwarded to the main committee.
Advocate Jameel said that it was not possible that all cases would be first sent to the constitutional bench’s committee. “This case can be sent to the committee for the constitution of a full bench,” he added.
Later the hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.
Reporter: Amanat Gishkori