Islamabad:
The Supreme Court ruled the contempt of court case against Additional Registrar Judicial Nazar Abbas, the court ruled that the Performance and Process Committee and the Judges Constitutional Committee ignored the Judicial Order.
A two -member bench comprising Justice Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Abbasi ruled that Nazar Abbas did not deliberately contempt of court. Is
The practice and procedure committee did not have the authority to withdraw the case despite the judicial order, the judges did not have the authority to withdraw the case through the administrative order in the presence of the judicial order. Nazar Abbas has no mistake, nor did he deliberately neglect the case, he had no personal interest for not fixing the case of Nazar Abbas, his move did not show any malpractice, Nazar Abbas. The move does not fall into the category of contempt of court.
Accepting the explanation of Nazar Abbas, ends the contempt of court proceedings. Whether or not the judges committees ignored the judicial order, the matter can be fixed by the full court, there is a 14 -member bench decision in this regard.
Chief Justice Pakistan Full Court and look at the matter. Look at the matter under Article 6 of Article 175 of the Phil Court Constitution, the customs case should be set back to the same bench, which the 3 -member bench had heard before.
The judicial decision states that we have also considered the question of whether the matter should be considered as dealt with after the show cause notice against the perpetrators of the alleged blasphemy or the matter is taken further against the members of the two committees. Continue for.
The first committee illegally withdrew the cases from a bench and handed over the second committee through an administrative order, which resulted in the impact of the court order, the second committee completely ignored the court order. Following the directives of the first committee, the case was fixed on January 27, 2025 before the Constitution Bench.
The two committees were not authorized to make such administrative decisions in violation of the court order on January 17, 2025, in which it shows that further action should be taken against the members of the two committees, but the court traditions and dignity requirements. It is to be resolved by the Supreme Court’s full court so that it can be resolved final and authenticly.
We also remind that the contempt of court proceedings against the registrar of a High Court was given so much importance that a large bench of 14 judges was formed, so in our opinion this problem is even more serious, which this court. The collective and institutional consideration of all the judges is required, so we present the matter to the Chief Justice to set up a full court and consider this important issue.
It is important to explain that the matter was not handed over to the committee set up under Section 2 of the Act as its authority is limited to the formation of Supreme Court benches, the difference between the benches of the court and the full court Article 203 J’s Article 203 J ( 2) is recognized in the provisions of (c) and (D), and the responsibility of calling a full court traditionally falls under the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice.
