The federal government has decided to challenge Supreme Court (SC) judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah’s verdict regarding the formation of a full court in the contempt of court case involving Additional Registrar Judicial Nazar Abbas, reported 24NewsHD TV channel.
During the hearing of the case related to the Customs Act on Tuesday, Attorney-General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan informed the constitutional bench of the SC about the government’s decision. “We have decided to file an appeal against the decision.”
Ordering linking of the record of the contempt of court case with that of the Customs Act case, the constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court adjourned the Customs Act case hearing for an indefinite time period.
The CB also withdrew the rulings given by SC judge Justice Mansoor Ali Shah on January 13 and January 16. On January 13, the judge had issued notices regarding the interpretation of Article 191-A, while on January 16, he had ordered fixing the case for the hearing before the previous bench.
Attorney General of Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan informed the constitutional bench during a hearing in the Customs Regulator Duty case that the government would file a review petition against Justice Mansoor's order.
Mr Awan stressed that the government views the decision as unconstitutional and contrary to established judicial norms.
During the hearing, Justice Jamal Mandokhail remarked that the concern for judicial independence is not limited to a few; it is shared by everyone. "No one should worry; nothing will happen to this institution. Whether we stay or not, the courts will continue to exist. Whatever work we do, it should be done properly. What kind of catastrophe occurred? This is also a court," he maintained.
Justice Mandokhail further remarked that life is unpredictable, but the Supreme Court and the judiciary will remain. "It is our responsibility to take care of this institution. No one should worry; nothing will happen to it."
Justice Aminuddin noted, "An order was issued on January 13, scheduling the hearing for January 27. How did the hearing suddenly get rescheduled for the next day?" Justice Mandokhail added, "A member of the bench recused themselves. Can a judge, while stepping away, issue an order for the case to be assigned to a specific bench?"
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi questioned, "Did that judge have the authority to reconstitute the bench?"
Addressing Barrister Salahuddin, Justice Naeem Afghan commented, "It seems you are responsible for the entire crisis."
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked, "According to the court order, you insisted that a regular bench could hear this case." Justice Mandokhail then questioned, "Do you not have confidence in these judges? If I am incompetent or unaware of the law, let me know. After the 26th Amendment, this is now the new system works. If someone does not like it, that is a separate matter."
Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan further informed the constitutional bench that the government would challenge the decision, specifically questioning the formation of a full court in this matter.
The Attorney General cited the constitutional concerns surrounding the formation of such a court and the authority of the committees involved in the administrative actions.
"We will be filing a review petition against Justice Mansoor Ali Shah's orders dated January 13 and 16," Awan said. He emphasized that the federal government considers this to be an issue of constitutional importance, which warranted a deeper judicial review.
The SC had on Monday disposed of the contempt of court case against the additional registrar and referred the matter of determining the powers of constitutional and regular benches to the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) for the formation of a full court.
According to the 24NewsHD TV channel, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, while announcing the reserved verdict, withdrew contempt proceedings against the additional registrar (judicial) for not fixing a case regarding the jurisdiction of regular benches.
The case, reserved for the judgment on January 23, centered round the additional registrar's failure to schedule a matter regarding the jurisdiction of constitutional and regular benches, rather it was transferred to the constitutional bench for further hearing.
The case was originally heard by a two-member bench comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi.
During the hearing, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah noted that the bench deliberated on two questions — one about delisting cases and the other about invalidating a court order through an administrative order.
The SC judge remarked, “The court did not find any such proof that showed that the additional registrar (judicial) had any personal interest in the case.”
Noting that neither was any evidence found of any “ill-intent” of the SC official, the senior judge announced the withdrawal of the show-cause notice on the contempt of court against Abbas.
The verdict said that prima facie the contempt of court proceedings should be initiated against judges committees, but the court was not issuing notices due to the court’s sanctity.
The controversy arose when the additional registrar failed to fix a plea filed by the federal government concerning whether regular Supreme Court benches can rule on constitutional matters, particularly Article 191-A introduced through the 26th Amendment.
Reporter: Amanat Gishkori