Practice and Procedures Committee’s powers questioned by SC

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court bench began the hearing of ‘powers of benches’ once again on Tuesday. Yesterday, the court was told that the case had not been fixed for hearing, despite earlier orders from the Supreme Court.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, presiding over the bench, had called the SC Registrar to give an explanation. The SC registrar appeared today and informed the court that the case should have been fixed for hearing with the Constitutional Bench. “It was mistakenly scheduled for the regular Supreme Court hearing,” he said.

Also read: New additional justices of IHC, BHC sworn in

Justice Aqeel Abbasi responded, “If this was a mistake, then it had been going on for a long time, how did it come to light now?” Justice Abbasi added that the actual mistake was to include his name in the bench, because he has already presided over the same case in Sindh High Court.

The registrar said that a note had been sent to the committee in this regard, to which Justice Mansoor asked that why was the note written when there was a judicial order issued for scheduling of the case.

“Our order was very clear as to which bench should be assigned the case,” Justice Mansoor said, instructing the registrar to show the note sent to the committee. The Registrar submitted the note, and after reading it, Justice Mansoor pointed out that the note does not say that a mistake was made in assigning the case.

“In the note, you are writing that the order was issued on January 16. You are asking to form a new bench based on the order,” Justice Mansoor said, adding, “In the order, we had told which bench the case should be assigned to?”

Also read: Justice Mansoor questions altered cause list in violation of SC’s orders

The registrar responded that the Practice and Procedure Committee sent the case to the committee of the Constitutional Benches. “The Constitutional Benches Committee scheduled the cases related to the amendment on January 27,” the registrar said. He added that after the amendment, the committee reviewed which cases could be scheduled in the bench and which could not.

Justice Mansoor responded that while scheduling of the case may have been left out due to registrar’s mistake, “but once it came to the bench, the committee’s work was over”.

“If the committee withdraws cases while they are running, then the independence of the judiciary is over,” Justice Mansoor said, adding that this would translate into withdrawal of the cases whenever it may felt like that the decision may come against the government.

Justice Mansoor said to the registrar, “After all, Allah Almighty must have designed a plan. This case was left out of your hands and came before us.”

Justice Abbasi added, “At least the constitutional amendment case was scheduled after we heard the case. Before this, there was a lot of noise but the amendment case was not being scheduled.”

The Supreme Court bench inquired that which constitutional amendment was to be reviewed in the tax case that caused this case to be withdrawn. The court also immediately summoned the Attorney General for assistance in this case. “The documents you are presenting are the defense of the Additional Registrar Judicial,” the court said to the SC Registrar, adding that the court will decide on the position presented in the defense whether it is correct or not.

Justice Mansoor questioned that where did the Practice and Procedure Committee get the authority to withdraw cases. The RSC Registrar responded, “The committee can appoint cases and can also withdraw them.”

Justice Mansoor replied, “That we will tell in this case whether the committee can withdraw cases or not.” He added, “I was asked to attend the Practice and Procedure Committee meeting. I told the committee that it is not mandatory to attend the meeting after the judicial order has been issued. How can a court order be overturned at the administrative level?”

Justice Abbasi concurred, “Why did it become a problem after hearing a case that the case was transferred from the bench? The work of the Practice and Procedure Committee is until the case is first scheduled.”

Justice Abbasi said that it was said that the matter has gone to the researcher. “The researcher is being mentioned every day, he is not one person, he is an entire cell,” he added.

The SC Registrar responded, “There is a research cell in the Supreme Court, you are aware of this.”

Justice Mansoor said to the Registrar, “I did not know you also had a lawyer in you,” adding, “We wanted to hear from the Additional Registrar Judicial, who did all this. You are an administrative officer; you do not know why you are being brought into this matter.”

The SC Registrar responded, “The Additional Registrar Judicial is on leave due to illness, the Registrar’s reply to the court. When the Additional Registrar Judicial returns, he will also reply to the court.

Justice Mansoor said, “The important question is whether the committee can withdraw the case despite the judicial order.”

The court then appointed Senator Hamid Khan and senior lawyer Munir Ahmed as judicial assistants. Additional Attorney General Aamir Rehman and respondent lawyer Shahid Jamil will give arguments tomorrow. The court has also directed the Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan to assist.

Additional Attorney General said, “I will also assist on the point that the decisions of the committee in a contempt of court case can be reviewed or not. At present, there is only a contempt of court case before the court.”

Justice Mansoor said, the registrar has presented the committee decision in his defense, adding, “Whether that committee decision was correct or not, we can review it.”

The petitioner’s counsel Barrister Salahuddin said, “I want to present the past verdicts from the time when a full court was formed by judicial order. There is a precedent for Qazi Faez Isa case, Iftikhar Chaudhry case, Malik S Ali case.”

The Supreme Court adjourned the contempt case hearing until tomorrow.

LETTER TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL BENCH

Yesterday, the three Supreme Court judges presiding over this case had written a letter to the constitutional bench, and to the presiding judge of the bench Justice Aminuddin Khan.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Abbasi penned the letter. It is notable here that Justice Abbasi was not present in yesterday’s hearing. The letter also pointed this out that Justice Abbasi was added to the bench on January 16, despite the fact that he has already presided over this case during his time at the Sindh High Court.

The letter also complained about the case not being scheduled for hearing on January 20.

Also read: SC justice delivers powerful speech on animal captivity, enforced disappearances

It mentioned the Practice and Procedure Committee meeting on January 17, during which Justice Mansoor Ali Shah had informed the committee that his point of view is on record. He had also refused to attend the committee meeting, citing that he did not need to appear in the committee.

The letter added that the committee could have continued with the bench already formed and scheduled the hearing for January 20.

Justice Mansoor wrote that by not following the judicial order for scheduling the case, contempt of court has been committed.