Pakistan’s Supreme Court concluded hearings on Thursday in a case challenging how judicial power is distributed among the country’s top judges, with justices expressing concern over a committee’s apparent disregard of court orders.
The case centers on whether a two-member committee of judges violated court authority by withdrawing a case despite an existing judicial order. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah said the committee could face contempt charges but indicated the court would exercise restraint.
The Supreme Court was hearing a contempt of court case concerning the non-scheduling of the benches’ powers case. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Abbasi presided over the proceedings, while Hamid Khan, appearing as amicus curiae (court-appointed legal advisors), presented his arguments.
Khawaja Haris and Ahsan Bhoon, also serving as amici curiae, were also present in court, alongside Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan.
Justice Mansoor Ali Shah observed that the core issue before the court was whether the Judges’ Committee had the authority to withdraw the case despite an existing judicial order. Hamid Khan contended that disparate distribution of powers among judges was contrary to judicial principles.
"If a Judges’ Committee disregards a judicial order, the matter could be referred to the full court,” Justice Mansoor observed.
Justice Aqeel Abbasi highlighted the apparent confusion surrounding the matter. He noted that according to the Supreme Court Rules of 1980, the authority to constitute a full court rests with the Chief Justice of Pakistan, not the Judges’ Committee.
Arguments by amici curiae
Hamid Khan argued against the uneven distribution of judicial powers among judges. He emphasized that the committee’s disregard of a judicial order could constitute a violation of constitutional principles.
During his arguments, Ahsan Bhoon emphasized that the 26th Constitutional Amendment had nullified numerous previous judicial precedents. He contended that cases involving constitutional matters should be exclusively assigned to constitutional benches.
Khawaja Haris stated that regular benches could address constitutional questions when properly referred. "The Practice and Procedure Committee lacks the authority to directly transfer cases to a constitutional bench,” he maintained.
Lively exchange in court
The hearing included moments of levity as Justice Shah and Ahsan Bhoon exchanged remarks. When Bhoon playfully suggested that the judiciary could have pushed harder to establish a constitutional court, Justice Shah quipped, "Perhaps a little more effort could have done it!”
A spirited exchange unfolded in court when Ahsan Bhoon contended that constitutional articles had previously been rendered ineffective under the pretext of interpretation. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah countered, "Nothing like that has happened recently.”
"The present judgment will be written by My Lord,” Bhoon observed, requesting that past experiences not influence the current decision. Justice Shah clarified the bench’s position, stating, "We are not a constitutional bench; we are just discussing casually.”
The dialogue then turned to the possibility of establishing a constitutional court. When Bhoon expressed his support for such an institution, Justice Shah remarked that it could have been achieved "with a little more push.” Bhoon responded by noting that they had indeed advocated for it.
Closing remarks
In his arguments, Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan advocated for restricting the scope of contempt proceedings. He suggested referring the matter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan for resolution. Justice Mansoor Ali Shah acknowledged this proposal, noting that the formation of a full court would ultimately be at the Chief Justice’s discretion.
The court concluded the hearing with Justice Shah observing that although the Judges’ Committee’s actions could merit contempt notices, the court would exercise restraint in issuing them. "We are here to safeguard the institution, not disrupt it,” he emphasized.
The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on the matter, with a detailed verdict expected to be announced in the coming days.
