AGP Awan says issues raised by Supreme Court could not be heard in contempt case ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice Mansoor Ali Shah has said that the 26th Constitutional Amendment has no connection with the case regarding the issue of determination of certain cases in the regular bench. Justice Shah’s remarks came during a contempt of court hearing on the non-scheduling of the chambers jurisdiction case on Wednesday, with Justice Shah heading a two-judge bench that also includes Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi. The issue at hand relates to the mis-fixing of cases – which involved a challenge to the Viruses Customs Act 1969 – by Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas – who was removed from office – who instead wrongly fixed cases for the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of Common Pleas. The cases were heard before a regular panel of three judges, which was heard on 13 January 2025, where, in addition to the merits of the case, the constitutionality of paragraph 2 of section 11A of the Customs Act was challenged. The court’s jurisdiction was challenged and the cases were subsequently adjourned to 16 January. The judicial branch became aware of serious misconduct on their part and turned to the regular committee in accordance with § 2 para. 1 letter 1 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023. Considering the serious nature of the lapse, the committee met on January 17 under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP). The committee noted that Art. 191A of the Constitution as amended by Art. 3 Art. 191A of the Constitution together with Art. 5 Art. 191A of the Constitution expressly entrusts such authority to the Constitutional Court and no other. The Committee therefore withdrew these cases from the regular bench and directed that the same be referred to the Constitutional Bench established under Article 191A of the Constitution for refixation. The matter also led to Justice Shah, Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Aqeel writing a letter to CJP Yahya Afridi, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, regarding the bench composition issue. Today’s hearing During today’s hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan argued that the court’s jurisdiction in contempt cases was limited and stressed that written statements from these notices issued were necessary. He argued that after the 26th Amendment, the Constitution Committee now has the power to create benches. Justice Shah replied that the question relates to Section 2 of the Practice and Procedure Act, whether a matter can be referred if the court seeks to determine its jurisdiction. Responding to AGP Awan’s objection that the court-appointed amicus curiae were lawyers who challenged the 26th Amendment, Justice Shah suggested appointing another amicus curiae from the same group, while Justice Aqeel agreed with the Attorney General’s concerns. The Attorney General further argued that under the court’s original criminal jurisdiction, the question was strictly between the court and the alleged owner. AGP Awan also noted that the questions raised by the court could not be heard in the contempt case, adding that until Nazar gave a written reply, the position of the registrar could not be considered his defence. He also clarified his dual role as plaintiff and counsel under Section 27A in contempt cases. Meanwhile, when asked whether the committee can move the case which was being heard by the regular bench, Justice Shah pointed out that the arguments given by the registrar in defense of the additional registrar said that everything happened on the basis of the decision of the two judges. committee. Noting that the case did not involve the powers of the Practice and Procedure Committee or the 26th Amendment, Judge Shah said, “If anyone is concerned, that’s their concern. That was not our intention, but we [only] wanted to understand why the case was returned.” He added: “It is not clear to what extent Nazar [Abbas] is connected to the fact that the case was not solved. Nazar sahib [it seems] something happened to you too.” The court then directed Additional Registrar Nazar to file a written reply today. Justice Shah asked the Attorney General to suggest a name for the amicus curiae, to which Awan replied with a smile, “I am not suggesting any name. The main case under the Customs Act is not yet before you.” The apex court then appointed Khawaja Haris and Ahsan Bhoon as amicus curiae, directed another registrar to file his written reply and adjourned the hearing till tomorrow (Thursday).
