Latest news with #CustomAct
Express Tribune
28-01-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
CB withdraws Shah's Jan 13-16 orders
ISLAMABAD: A constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court has withdrawn the January 13 and January 16 orders passed by a regular bench with regard to clarification about the jurisdiction of SC's regular and constitutional benches during hearing of a bunch of cases challenging vires of the Custom Act, 1969. On Tuesday, a seven-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan resumed hearing the cases which were earlier placed before a three-member regular bench headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah. However, on January 17, the Supreme Court committee that lists cases before benches withdrew the cases from the regular bench and referred them to the CB committee for re-listing. This irked the regular bench which initiated contempt proceedings against an additional registrar, Nazar Abbas, for violating its order. Later, on January 27, the bench exonerated the official from contempt charges but noted that the SC committees had committed contempt of court. It also ordered placing the cases once again before the original bench. However, the seven-member CB to which the case was later listed for hearing withdrew the regular bench's orders dated Jan 13 and Jan 16 on Tuesday. During the hearing, Attorney-General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan said the government has decided to challenge the contempt of court decision by Justice Shah led bench. "An appeal will be filed against the contempt of court decision issued the previous day, and it has been decided to challenge Justice's orders from January 13 and January 16," he said. During the hearing, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that Justice Mansoor Ali Shah had ordered the customs duty cases to be placed before his bench. He questioned whether the CB proceedings could continue in the presence of this order. Justice Jamal Mandokhail questioned the legitimacy of the regular's bench's order in the contempt case. "This is also a court. Life is unpredictable, but the Supreme Court and other courts will remain. We must take care of our institution. No one should worry; nothing will happen to this institution," he added. Justice Mazhar expressed surprise, saying that the January 16 order said the case should be "considered heard." He questioned the origin of the term, noting that either a case is heard or it is not. "Where did the expression 'considered heard' come from?" he asked. AGP Awan said he had two orders from January 13. "One specified the next hearing date as January 27, while the other stated January 16. The hearing date had been altered in the order," he said. Justice Mazhar further said it was unclear how, without serving the AGP a notice under Rule 27-A, it was stated that the case should be considered heard. Subsequently, the CB issued an order to attach the record of the Nazar Abbas contempt of court case with the customs duty cases and adjourned the hearing indefinitely. One member of the bench, Justice Ayesha Malik, recused herself from hearing the case. In a note issued after the hearing, she stated that she would not like to hear these cases in order to "protect and preserve the sanctity of the original proceedings and the judicial order of January 16".
Express Tribune
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
All is not well among brother judges
ISLAMABAD: A division bench of the Supreme Court has exonerated its additional registrar of contempt charges but noted that both the SC committees responsible for listing cases before regular and constitutional benches "illegally" withdrew a case from the bench and are liable for contempt of court. Interestingly, the committee responsible for listing cases before regular benches of the SC comprise CJ Yahya Afridi, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aminuddin Khan The three-member committee responsible for listing cases before the Constitutional Bench (CB) includes Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. The bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi on Monday issued its written order in a contempt of court case initiated against Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas. The bench issued show cause notice to Abbas over alleged contempt of court after a bunch of cases in which vires of Custom Act, 1969 were challenged were withdrawn from the bench and were referred back to the CB committee for re-listing. The court noted that upon examining the case, it found that Abbas did not deliberately avoid the listing of the cases before the bench as directed in the court order. "There is no evidence to suggest that he had any personal interest in the matter or had connived with any of the parties to the case, nor did he act with the intention of causing damage to any of the parties to the case. There is no indication of mala fide intent in his actions. "In the absence of any such factors or elements of contumacy, his conduct cannot be considered contumacious, nor can it be said to have suffered from mala fides, requiring contempt proceedings. "For these reasons, by accepting his explanation, the show cause notice issued against him for contempt proceedings is discharged," it said. The court noted that it also deliberated on the question as to whether, following the discharge of the show-cause notice against the additional registrar (judicial), the matter should be considered concluded or whether it should proceed further against the members of the two committees. The bench said the first committee led by CJ Afridi "unlawfully" withdrew the part-heard cases from a bench and transferred it for the consideration of the other committee, through an administrative order by undoing the effect of a judicial order. "While the second Committee, in total disregard of the judicial order passed by the regular Bench, simply in pursuance of the direction of the first Committee, went ahead and fixed the case before the Constitutional Bench on 27 January 2025. "Both the Committees were not legally authorized to take administrative decisions dated 17 January 2025 in violation of the judicial order," it added. In this background, it said, it appears that the matter has to proceed further against the members of the two committees. "However, judicial propriety and decorum demand that the said question be considered and decided by the Full Court of the Supreme Court so that it is authoritatively decided once and for all," it added. The bench made it clear that it was not referring the matter to the committee constituted under Section 2 of the Practice and Procedure Act, 2023 as its authority is limited to constituting benches "The Full Court of the Supreme Court, however, is constituted by the Constitution itself under Article 176. The distinction between the benches of a Court and the Full Court is well-established and constitutionally recognized in the provisions of Article 203J(2)© and (d) of the Constitution and the responsibility of convening the Full Court conventionally falls within the domain of the CJ." The division bench order also noted that no one is entitled to disobey or decline compliance with the court order merely because he believes it to be inconsistent with the Constitution and the law. "When a Bench is seized of a case and has partly heard it, the matter becomes part of judicial proceedings, and the Bench hearing the case assumes exclusive jurisdiction over it. "Any interferencewhether through withdrawal or reassignmentwithout judicial justification undermines the principle of judicial independence," it said After unveiling of the verdict, a six-member larger bench that was hearing the additional registrar's intra-court appeal against the show cause notice issued by Shah led bench disposed of the ICA. However, during the proceeding, head of the bench, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail asked as to how an order was issued when the contempt proceedings were terminated. "The verdict [of Shah led bench] includes the chief justice among the alleged contemnors. Will those accused of contempt form the full court?" he questioned. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the contempt of court law lays out a complete procedure, which includes issuance of a notice first. "Everyone in the world is entitled to the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A. Are judges who are held as contemnor not entitled to the protections of Article 10-A?" "Will the full court formed include the four judges accused of contempt? They could have issued a notice, and we, the four judges, would have appeared before their court," He added. Later, a majority of four judges stated in the short order that the intra-court appeal was disposed of, with detailed reasons to be provided later. However, two judges, Justice Athar Minallah and Justice Shahid Waheed, agreed only to the extent of disposing of the case but disagreed with the majority of four judges on issuing detailed reasons. QUOTE When a bench is seized of a case and has partly heard it it assumes exclusive jurisdiction over it. SC verdict
Express Tribune
26-01-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SC to unveil verdict in registrar case today
ISLAMABAD: A division bench of the Supreme Court is going to unveil its verdict today in a contempt case initiated against an additional registrar of the court for withdrawing a case from the bench. The bench comprising Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Aqeel Abbasi had reserved the verdict in the case on January 23. It will unveil its order at 9:30 am. Interestingly, a six-member SC bench will take up Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas's intra-court appeal against the show cause-notice issued by Justice Shah led bench also today (Monday). Justice Shah has already raised objection to inclusion of Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar in the larger bench that also comprises Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Musarrat Hilali It all started when a bunch of cases in which vires of Custom Act, 1969 were challenged were listed for hearing before a three-member regular bench led by Justice Ali Shah and comprising Justice Ayesha Malik and Irfan Saadat Khan on January 13. During the hearing, Justice Shah noted that after the formation of a Constitutional Bench (CB) within the SC in view of the 26th Constitutional Amendment a majority of cases were being shifted to the CB. He said there was a need to review the jurisdiction of the regular benches in relation to the CB. The bench later issued notices to respondents. At the next date of hearingon January 16on of the members of the bench, Justice Khan, was replaced with Justice Aqeel Abbasi, who had heard the Customs Act's case as a Sindh High Court judge. The bench expressed astonishment at the change in composition of the bench and demanded that the previous bench should be restored as it adjourned the hearing till January 20. However, an SC committee led by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi on January 17 directed its office to withdraw these cases from the regular bench and placed them before the CB Committee constituted under Article 191A of the Constitution for re-listing. This move irked the regular bench members who issued a contempt notice to the additional registrar (judicial). The bench members also wrote a letter to the committee led by CJP Afridi. In the letter, they stated that a failure of the office to comply with a judicial order of the court not only undermines the institution's integrity but was also in defiance of a settled law by this court that administrative orders cannot take away the jurisdiction of the bench taking cognizance of a matter'. Despite the letter, the SC regular committee did not review its decision regarding the withdrawal of the case from the regular bench but removed the additional registrar "on account of serious lapse" on January 21. Meanwhile, Justice Shah and Justice Abbasi continued the contempt proceedings. During the hearing, Justice Shah noted that apparently the SC's regular bench's committee ignored the bench's January 13 judicial order. He stated that the court could issue contempt notice to the committee but would not.
