SC bench withdraws contempt notice against registrar official in jurisdiction row
Two Supreme Court judges on Monday withdrew a contempt notice issued a week ago against a senior staff member for not fixing a case regarding the jurisdiction of regular benches.
The decision came as a two-judge bench, comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, pronounced its verdict on contempt proceedings against Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas, who the court office removed on Tuesday.
The contempt notice had been issued when a case about whether SC’s regular benches could determine the constitutionality of the Constitution’s Article 191A — under which the constitutional bench was established after the 26th Amendment — was not fixed for hearing on January 20 as ordered by the bench.
During today’s hearing, Justice 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.
He observed, “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 puisne judge announced the withdrawal of the show-cause notice on the contempt of court against Abbas.
Earlier, Registrar Muhammad Saleem Khan had explained that the case was not fixed on January 20 because of two decisions — by the regular committee constituted under Section 2 of the SC Practice and Procedure Act and the constitutional committee set up under Article 191(A)(4) of the Constitution.
During previous hearings, which also witnessed some changes in the bench, the SC had appointed four senior counsels as amici curiae to assist the court.
The question of jurisdiction had arisen on January 13, when a three-judge bench led by Justice Shah heard the federal government’s petition against a Sindh High Court’s decision to strike down Section 221-A(2) of the Customs Act, 1969. The applicant had argued that the regular bench could not hear the case as it involved challenges to the constitutionality of laws.
Hearing on pleas against 26th Amendment adjourned for 3 weeks
Meanwhile, an eight-judge constitutional bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, finally took up several challenges to the 26th Amendment.
The court issued notices to respondents on applications seeking the formation of a full court to hear the matter and live-streaming of proceedings in the case.
Subsequently, the matter was adjourned for three weeks.
Several petitioners, including high court bar associations, had requested the SC to constitute a full court to hear the matter instead of the constitutional bench established under the 26th Amendment.
More to follow