Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 191A, 202A, 204 & 209—Contempt of Court—Whether Judges of the Supreme Court can be proceeded against by their fellow Judges for contempt—Scope and limitation Held, contempt proceedings cannot be initiated by a Judge or Bench of the Supreme Court against another sitting Judge of the same Court; constitutional immunity under Art.199(5) bars intra-Court proceedings of such nature—A Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court is not a “person” within the meaning of Art.204(2)—Judicial immunity preserves independence of judiciary and prevents internal interference—Misconduct of a Judge, if any, is cognizable only by the Supreme Judicial Council under Art.209, and contempt proceedings under Art.204(2) cannot run parallel thereto—To permit such intra-Court contempt proceedings would violate esprit de corps and erode judicial discipline and public trust. Cited Cases: • Jurist Foundation v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2020 SC 1 • Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry PLD 1998 SC 103 • Parkash Chand AIR 1998 SC 1344 (India) • Mujibur Rahman Shami PLD 1973 Lahore 778 • Mian Jamal Shah PLD 1966 SC 1 (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art.191A (inserted by 26th Constitutional Amendment, 2024)—Transfer of jurisdiction to Constitutional Benches—Effect on pending petitions After 26th Constitutional Amendment, all petitions concerning constitutional interpretation or fundamental constitutional questions stood transferred forthwith by operation of law to newly constituted “Constitutional Benches” under Art.191A(5)—Any regular Bench of the Supreme Court became functus officio in relation thereto—Regular Bench had no jurisdiction to proceed or issue directions in such cases, including contempt proceedings against Court officials—Placement of files before that Bench did not confer jurisdiction—Any order passed by such Bench contrary to Art.191A(3) & (5) was without constitutional sanction and void. Cited Case: • Dewan Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2025 SC 394 (c) Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 ----S. 19—Withdrawal of appeal—Effect Appellant (Additional Registrar, Judicial) sought withdrawal of appeal under S.19 of the Ordinance challenging a show-cause notice in contempt—Since the original Bench had discharged the notice, partial withdrawal allowed to the extent of the appellant—However, Court retained jurisdiction to determine constitutional issues arising from the regular Bench’s subsequent order initiating contempt proceedings against members of Committees under the Supreme Court (Practice & Procedure) Act, 2023 and Art.191A(4) of the Constitution. (d) Judicial discipline and esprit de corps ----Judicial independence—Internal comity—Administrative and adjudicative boundaries Superior Court Judges stand on equal constitutional footing; no one Judge is superior or subordinate to another within the same Court—Judicial propriety demands maintenance of esprit de corps and restraint from initiating intra-Court contempt processes—Disagreements over administrative or roster matters must be resolved institutionally, not through reciprocal judicial action—Any internal contempt process would generate anarchy and destroy institutional harmony. (e) Administrative jurisdiction—Part-heard matters—Transfer and fixation Part-heard matters cannot be transferred or fixed before another Bench through administrative orders except as authorized by Constitution, law, or rules—Once jurisdiction shifts (as under Art.191A), regular Benches lose authority to act further—Judges are bound by their Oath, the Code of Conduct, and constitutional command to obey the Constitution and law (Art.5(2)); failure to do so undermines discipline and public confidence. (f) Judicial immunity—Distinction from misconduct Judicial immunity covers acts performed in judicial and administrative capacity but does not extend to personal misconduct—However, inquiry into misconduct of a Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court lies exclusively before the Supreme Judicial Council under Art.209(7)—No other forum, including the Supreme Court itself, can inquire into or punish such conduct under Art.204. (g) Precedent distinguished ----Justice (R) Iftikhar Hussain Ch. & others PLD 2011 SC 197—Distinguished That case involved Judges who had ceased to hold office upon taking oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) of 2007; they were no longer constitutionally sitting Judges, hence could be proceeded under Art.204—Present case differs as the Committee members remain sitting Judges, constitutionally protected under Art.209. Disposition: Appeal partly allowed to the extent of appellant’s personal withdrawal; to the extent of observations against members of both Committees, proceedings continued and examined—Court held that contempt process against members of Committees (sitting Judges) was not maintainable and quashed—Orders of the regular Bench dated 21.01.2025 to 27.01.2025 set aside and ceased to hold the field—Appeal disposed of accordingly. (Order dated 27.01.2025; released 23.09.2025; Approved for Reporting)

Summary: (a) Contempt of Court—Wilful disobedience of judicial directives—Failure of public officer to furnish certified copies of recruitment record despite explicit court orders constitutes deliberate defiance of lawful command and obstruction of justice—Such conduct falls within contempt jurisdiction. (b) Right to information—Public documents—Officials are duty-bound to furnish certified records promptly in accordance with law—Withholding, tampering, or delay in issuing such records amounts to misconduct and breach of transparency obligations—Khurram Shahzad Khan v. Secretary Agriculture (2018 SCR 14) followed. (c) Recruitment process—Tampering with merit list—Evidence established deliberate interpolation and alteration of original record by insertion of fictitious entry—Such act constitutes abuse of authority, administrative corruption, and interference with judicial process—Public employment is a constitutional trust and must be conducted with fairness, equality, and transparency. (d) Administrative accountability—District Health Officer’s office found to be locus of record tampering—Court directed Chief Secretary to initiate comprehensive inquiry, transfer officer forthwith, and ensure preservation of all records—Pending inquiry, DHO barred from serving as head of any district health office for five years. (e) Governance reform—Access to records—Chief Secretary directed to formulate and notify within ninety days a transparent, time-bound, and accessible mechanism for issuance of certified public documents, including designation of Public Information Officers, maintenance of digital registers, and publication of procedures on departmental websites. Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions—Matter referred to Chief Secretary for inquiry and systemic reforms—Court to retain supervision until compliance report submitted.

Summary: (a) Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003--- ----S. 17(3)---Contempt proceedings---Preliminary hearing before framing of charge---Mandatory requirement---Alleged contemner was proceeded against on contempt application alleging violation of order passed by High Court in its original civil jurisdiction---Single Judge, after receiving counter-affidavit, directly fixed date for framing of charge---Held, that S.17(3) of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 clearly requires that before taking cognizance or fixing date for framing of charge, alleged contemner must be afforded opportunity of preliminary hearing---Only after such hearing, and upon prima facie satisfaction that interest of justice so requires, Court may fix date for framing of charge in open Court. (b) Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003--- ----S. 17(3)---Prima facie satisfaction---Stage and procedure---Court dealing with contempt matter must first consider contempt application and counter-affidavit after giving alleged contemner preliminary hearing---Held, that prima facie satisfaction for proceeding further in contempt is to be formed after preliminary hearing and not before it---Direct fixation of date for framing charge without such hearing constituted procedural lapse apparent on face of record. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 204---Contempt jurisdiction---Exercise of jurisdiction subject to statutory procedure---Contempt application was moved under Art.204 of Constitution read with Ss.3 and 4 of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003---Held, that exercise of contempt jurisdiction must conform to procedure prescribed under S.17 of Ordinance---Even where violation of Court order is alleged, alleged contemner cannot be taken to stage of charge without being afforded preliminary hearing required by law. (d) Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003--- ----S. 17(3) proviso---Evidence by affidavit---Right of cross-examination---Scope---Statutory scheme permits Court, after framing of charge, to proceed on basis of affidavits or after recording evidence---Provided that alleged contemner, if he so requests, shall not be denied right of cross-examination in relation to any affidavit used in evidence against him, except affidavit of a Judge---Such safeguard reinforces due process protections in contempt proceedings. (e) High Court proceedings--- ----Contempt application---Nazir report alleging violation---Effect---Respondents referred to Nazir report as basis for alleging violation of High Court order---Counsel admitted that no preliminary hearing had been conducted before matter was fixed for framing of charge---Held, that existence of material such as Nazir report could not dispense with statutory requirement of preliminary hearing under S.17(3) of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. (f) High Court Appeal--- ----Contempt proceedings---Division Bench overlooking procedural lapse---Effect---Order of Single Judge fixing date for framing of charge without preliminary hearing was challenged before Division Bench, which disposed of appeal with direction to parties to appear before Single Judge for further proceedings---Held, that Division Bench overlooked crucial question that mandatory preliminary hearing under S.17(3) had not been afforded---Both orders, to extent of contempt proceedings, were liable to be set aside. (g) Contempt proceedings--- ----Procedural irregularity---Matter remanded/continued before competent Court---Effect---Supreme Court set aside orders of Single Judge and Division Bench only to extent of contempt proceedings---Contempt application was kept pending---Held, that if High Court intends to initiate contempt proceedings, it shall first provide opportunity of preliminary hearing on basis of contempt application and counter-affidavit, and thereafter decide whether prima facie case of contempt is made out for proceeding in accordance with law. Disposition: Appeal was allowed. Order dated 30.10.2024 passed by Single Judge of High Court in Suit No.918/2024 and order dated 19.11.2024 passed by Division Bench in H.C.A. No.484/2024 were set aside to extent of contempt proceedings. Contempt application was kept pending, with direction that any further contempt proceedings shall be initiated only after providing preliminary hearing and determining whether prima facie case exists in accordance with S.17(3) of Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. ----- " Section 3, 4 and 17 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 (2) The charge cannot be framed without providing opportunity of preliminary hearing to the alleged contemnor under Section 17 (3) of the aforesaid Ordinance."

Summary: (1) Section 3 4 and 17 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 (2) The charge cannot be framed without providing opportunity of preliminary hearing to the alleged contemnor under Section 17 (3) of the aforesaid Ordinance

Summary: (a) Contempt of Court — Purpose and scope — To uphold the majesty of courts, ensure unimpeded administration of justice, and preserve public confidence — Contempt is not to protect individual judges but to vindicate the authority of the Court and the sanctity of its orders — Robkar-e-Adalat v. Shahid Mohi-ud-Din (2017 SCR 1411), Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed (2022 SCR 816), Kh. Muhammad Maqbool War v. AJ&K & others (2022 SCR 1299) followed and applied. (b) Constitutional & statutory framework — Article 45, AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974 — Courts (SC/HC) empowered to punish for: abuse/obstruction of process; disobedience of orders; scandalizing the Court; prejudicing pending matters; or any act constituting contempt — Exercise of power regulated by law/rules — Contempt of Courts Act, 1993, s.7 (procedure) reproduced and applied — In-facie curial power under s.7(4) recognized. (c) Willful disobedience of Supreme Court’s direction — Criminal case under s. 9(c) CNSA, 1997 — SC order dated 19-01-2023 declined bail and directed trial to conclude within six months “without touching merits” — Sessions Judge nevertheless allowed an application under s. 265-K, Cr.P.C., and acquitted the accused within < one month (16-02-2023) — Held: action calculated to defeat and defy SC’s binding direction; constitutes willful disobedience and criminal contempt. (d) False statement by judicial officer — When confronted in Court, contemnor denied passing the 265-K order; record from High Court proved otherwise — Held: deliberate misstatement before apex Court by a serving judge is aggravating; strikes at judicial integrity and public confidence — Contempt in gravest category. (e) Administrative circulars/policies v. binding judicial command — Defence based on “policy guidelines/circular dated 29-10-2021” rejected — Executive/administrative policy cannot override an apex-Court judgment; Art. 42-B (binding effect of SC judgments) emphasized — Even High Court judges are not immune from contempt if they act in derogation of superior judicial orders — Contemnor, a Sessions Judge, had an unequivocal duty to obey. (f) Pattern of misconduct — Relevance — Registrar HC report revealed repeated acquittals on s.265-K or appeals; bail granted in an overwhelming majority, with apparent preferential pattern; prior disciplinary history: (i) 52 compromise decrees (46 shamilat-deh; 6 private land) passed without authority as Sr. Civil Judge, Bhimber — two annual increments withheld (notification 08-07-2010); (ii) Viral audio using inappropriate language re judiciary while DSJ Rawalakot — three increments stopped (notification 28-03-2022); (iii) Complaint of abuse of litigant in open court at DSJ Haveli — unresolved — Held: persistent, unrepentant misconduct aggravates contempt and questions fitness to remain in service. (g) Apology — Bare, unelaborated “unconditional apology” tendered after charge is not ipso facto purgatory — Apology must be genuine, spontaneous, and show contrition — Conduct showed denial/deflection, not remorse — Apology rejected. (h) Supervisory responsibility — High Court’s superintendence over district judiciary — Court noted concern at failure to curb persistent misconduct; stressed constitutional duty of effective oversight. (i) Administrative/disciplinary consequences — Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1977, r.9 invoked — Direction to competent authority to issue show-cause and pass an appropriate order within a fortnight; where conviction entails moral turpitude, major penalties may be imposed without full r.5–8 procedure, after show-cause. (j) Reference for revisional scrutiny — In view of Registrar report on 52 compromise decrees passed without legal authority and in violation of the Registration Act, matter referred to High Court under s.115(d), CPC for examination of legality/propriety after notice to decree-holders — High Court to decide within six months — AKLASC v. Messrs. Muhammad Farid Khan & others (PLD 1986 AJ&K 228) referred. Disposition: Contempt established — Conviction upheld — Sentence: 3 days’ simple imprisonment (per short order dated 02-07-2025) — Directions issued under r.9, E&D Rules, and reference made to High Court under s.115(d), CPC — Judgment dated 03-07-2025.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 204 & 10-A---Contempt of court---Violation of status quo order---Punishment to contemnor summarily---Scope---Contempt proceedings, nature of---Principles of natural justice and fair opportunity of hearing---Non-availability of any material to prove the allegation---Objection qua maintainability of contempt petition was raised by the contemnor---Validity---Material available on record did not support the allegation---Respondents in their replies had denied any violation and claimed that they were in lawful possession of the suit property---As per report of SHO concerned no fresh construction was found at the site in question---Matter of possession was seriously disputed between the parties and was subjudice before the civil court---Contemnor cannot be punished on the ground of contempt summarily---Contempt proceedings are of a special nature and cannot be initiated or continued unless the disobedience of the order is established to be clear, deliberate, and willful---Although contempt proceedings are not bound by technical requirements of the CPC or Cr.P.C., yet the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity must be followed in letter and spirit---Power to punish for contempt is an extraordinary one and must be exercised with circumspection and only in those cases where the authority and dignity of the Court is undermined through a contumacious act---Mere allegations, assumptions or technical infractions without a conscious effort to defy the Court's command are not sufficient to attract penal consequences---Petitioner failed to establish willful disobedience of order of High Court, thus, no case of contempt of court was made out against respondents---Contempt petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Saadat Khialy, Staff Reporter ("Kohistan" Daily) and others v. The State and another PLD 1962 SC 457; G.S. Gideon Advocate v. The State PLD 1963 SC 1 and Muhammad Ibrahim and others v. Syed Ahmad and others PLD 2000 SC 71 rel. Muhammad Kokab Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Tanvir Iqbal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Order Jawad Hassan, J .--- The grievance agitated through this contempt petition under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the "Constitution") is that the Respondents have not complied with orders dated 11.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.2998 of 2022 whereby status quo qua the property in dispute was ordered to be maintained. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondents Nos.2 to 5 have committed violation of the status quo orders of this Court. He submitted that the Petitioner is in possession of the suit property but the Respondents while breaking its boundary wall started construction over there. He pleads that the Respondents be proceeded and punished accordingly for disobeying the aforesaid orders. 3. Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondents have objected to the maintainability of this Petition on the basis of reply of the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 stating that they did not disobey any order of this Court. He added that the Petitioner filed this Petition with malafide intention because he is not in possession of the suit land but succeeded to obtain interim relief. He submitted that pursuant to the order dated 09.02.2024, Faisal Khan, SI/SHO concerned visited the place and got recorded his statement on 27.02.2024, that he did not see any new construction over the disputed land. He stated that the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 are in lawful possession of the suit land and the Petitioner has no concern whatsoever with it. 4. Heard. Record perused. 5. In order to proceed in the contempt proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution for disobeying the orders of this Court, it is necessary to go through the history of the case. On 09.02.2024, notices were issued to the Respondents to file reply regarding violation of status quo orders dated 11.12.2023 disobeyed on 14.12.2023 and 24.12.2023. It is noted that Petitioner's civil suit is still pending which was instituted on 31.03.2021 and status quo order was granted on 31.03.2021 but plaint was rejected on 30.03.2022. Against which an appeal was filed on 01.04.2022 and again status quo was granted on the said date. However, the said appeal was decided on 27.04.2022 remanding the case to trial Court for its decision afresh. In post remand proceedings, application for temporary injunction was dismissed on 23.07.2022. The said order was then appealed in which status quo was granted on 26.07.2022 but ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on 04.10.2022, which order was challenged in writ petition wherein this Court granted status quo orders, referred to above. 6. Pertinently, a contemnor cannot be punished on the ground of contempt summarily, since in the judgment reported as "Saadat Khialy, Staff Reporter ("Kohistan" Daily) and others v. The State and another" (PLD 1962 SC 457) the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that "contempt of Court proceedings were sui generis in nature partaking of some of the elements of both civil and criminal proceedings but really constituting neither, that there was no fixed formula for contempt proceedings and that technical accuracies were not required, nor were we bound by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or by the technicalities of ordinary criminal proceedings; but, nevertheless being Courts of justice, we would normally follow the fundamental rules for the ascertainment of the truth by giving the fullest opportunity to the person accused of defending himself and of putting forward his case with as much, if not, more fairness than we would in an ordinary trial before us". Further it was held in case titled "G. S. Gideon, Advocate v. The State" (PLD 1963 SC 1) that "the jurisdiction of Courts of Record or superior Courts to punish for contempt by the summary process of attachment or committal is a special jurisdiction, which is inherent in all such Courts as an essential concomitant of their power to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to maintain the authority of law. There is no fixed formula for contempt proceedings and technical accuracies are not required nor are the superior Courts bound by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or by the technicalities of ordinary criminal proceedings. All that is necessary is that the fundamental rules for the ascertainment of truth should be followed and the contemnor should be given the fullest opportunity of defending himself". In "Muhammad Ibrahim and others v. Syed Ahmad and others" (PLD 2000 SC 71) it was further held that "admittedly, the Code of Civil Procedure regulates civil proceedings but the contempt proceedings are neither civil nor criminal and it partakes both. The power exercised by the Court in contempt proceedings is in the nature of special jurisdiction. Section 7 of the Act lays down a procedure for Supreme Court and High Court. Where it is necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice to proceed against a contemnor, he may be proceeded against by setting forth the substance of the charge against him and the ground on which he is charged with contempt of Court and calling upon him to show cause why he should not be punished, after holding such enquiry and taking such evidence as the Court deems necessary. A bare perusal of section 7 of the Act indicates that section 12(2), C.P.C. is not applicable to proceedings initiated under the Act Refer clause (3) of Article 204 of the Constitution which provides that the exercise of the power conferred on a Court may be regulated by law and subject' to law by rules made by the Court. The superior Courts are not bound by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure or by the technicalities of ordinary criminal proceedings or civil proceedings in dealing with a contempt matter". 7. The entire case of the Petitioner rests on the allegation that the Respondents violated the status quo order dated 11.12.2023; however, the material available on record does not support this allegation. The Respondents No.2 and 3 have submitted their replies wherein they have denied any violation and claimed that they are in lawful possession of the suit property. The record further shows that in compliance with the directions of this Court, the concerned SHO visited the site and recorded his statement on 27.02.2024, stating that no fresh construction was found at the site in question. It also appears that the matter of possession is seriously disputed between the parties and is sub judice before the civil court. Contempt proceedings are of a special nature and cannot be initiated or continued unless the disobedience of the order is established to be clear, deliberate, and willful. It is now well-settled that although such proceedings are not bound by technical requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure or Code of Criminal Procedure, yet the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity must be followed in letter and spirit. The power to punish for contempt is an extraordinary one and must be exercised with circumspection and only in those cases where the authority and dignity of the Court is undermined through a contumacious act. Mere allegations, assumptions, or technical infractions without a conscious effort to defy the Court's command are not sufficient to attract penal consequences. 8. In the present facts and circumstances, since the Petitioner has failed to establish that the Respondents have willfully disobeyed the order(s) of this Court, so no case for initiating contempt proceedings against the Respondents is made out. This contempt petition is therefore dismissed being devoid of any force. SA/A-47/L Petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan — Arts. 191A(4), 184(3) & 189 — Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court — Challenge to vires of sub-section (2) of Section 221-A of the Customs Act, 1969 — Competence of the Regular Bench to hear the matter Held, that under Article 191A(4) of the Constitution, Committees constituted under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, are the legal and constitutional fora to determine bench composition. The Regular Bench had assumed jurisdiction over the CPLAs without lawful authority. Orders dated 13.01.2025 and 16.01.2025 passed in these cases were declared void ab initio and recalled accordingly. (b) Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 — S. 2(1) — Judicial functions of Committees in Bench assignment Held, that powers exercised by the Committees under the Act do not encroach upon judicial functions. Their role is limited to determining which Bench hears specific matters. Any order passed in violation of this framework is void. (c) Contempt Proceedings Against Additional Registrar — Criminal Original Petition No.1/2025 — Notice issued to Additional Registrar (Judicial) regarding contempt proceedings — Subsequently challenged in Criminal Intra Court Appeal No.1/2025 Held, that notice was withdrawn vide order dated 27.01.2025. Appeal disposed of by Larger Bench with a 4-2 majority. (d) Leave to Appeal & Notices to Attorney General — Leave to appeal granted — Notices issued to respondents — Attorney General for Pakistan directed to appear under Order XXVI-A, CPC — Appeals arising from the instant CPLAs to be placed before the Constitutional Bench for adjudication Disposition: Orders dated 13.01.2025 and 16.01.2025 declared void — Leave to appeal granted — Matter fixed before the Constitutional Bench.

Summary: (a) Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 ----S. 19—Withdrawal of appeal against show-cause notice—Effect of discharge of contempt proceedings Appellant, an Additional Registrar (Judicial), Supreme Court, sought withdrawal of appeal filed under S. 19 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 challenging a show-cause notice—Since the original Bench had already discharged the contempt notice, continuation of the appeal was rendered infructuous—Held, permission to withdraw the appeal was reasonable and appropriate; consequently, appeal dismissed as withdrawn. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 204—Jurisdiction in contempt matters—Discharge of notice—Consequent withdrawal of appeal Where contempt proceedings are discharged by the competent Bench exercising jurisdiction under Art. 204 of the Constitution read with the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, any pending appeal against the show-cause notice becomes infructuous and liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. Disposition: Application for withdrawal allowed; appeal dismissed as withdrawn. (Order dated 27 January 2025; Original Jurisdiction—Crl. I.C.A. No. 1 of 2025 & Crl. M.A. 135/2025)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 190, 191A, 5, 176, & 185(3); Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court regarding withdrawal of cases by Committees and reconstitution of Benches—Effect of judicial orders—Committees constituted under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 and Article 191A of the Constitution were found to lack authority to withdraw part-heard cases where jurisdiction had been assumed by a regular Bench—Supreme Court held that such withdrawal undermines judicial independence and the sanctity of judicial proceedings—Judicial orders cannot be undone through administrative decisions, even by Committees constituted under law—Administrative orders attempting to bypass judicial authority were declared unlawful—Reconstitution or withdrawal of part-heard cases is a judicial function, not an administrative one. (b) Contempt of Court ----Sections 17(3) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003—Explanation of non-compliance with court orders—Failure to comply with court orders regarding the fixation of cases—Court accepted the explanation provided by the Additional Registrar (Judicial), holding that there was no deliberate or mala fide intent to disobey judicial orders—Held, no evidence of contumacy or malice was found—Show-cause notice for contempt of court discharged. (c) Judiciary—Independence and Integrity ----Practice of hearing part-heard cases—Judicial independence—Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that once a Bench has assumed jurisdiction and partly heard a case, it cannot be withdrawn or reassigned without judicial justification—Judicial propriety mandates continuity of Bench unless recusal, conflict of interest, or other valid reasons are present—Administrative interference in judicial proceedings is inconsistent with the principle of independence of the judiciary. (d) Committees under Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023 ----Authority of Committees—Administrative orders—Committees under the Act and Article 191A of the Constitution were found to have exceeded their jurisdiction by passing administrative orders contravening judicial orders—Such orders were declared without lawful authority and ineffective—Matter referred to the Full Court for authoritative resolution. ----- Cited Cases: Pir Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan (PLD 1995 SC 66) Fazlul Quader Chowdhry v. Abdul Haque (PLD 1963 SC 486) Marbury v. Madison (5 US 137 [1803]) Human Rights Case No.14959-K of 2018 (PLD 2019 SC 183) Contempt proceedings against Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani (PLD 2012 SC 553) Raja Amer v. Federation of Pakistan (PLJ 2024 SC 114). ------ Disposition: Matter regarding contempt of court by Committees referred to the Full Court for collective deliberation—Additional Registrar’s explanation accepted—Show-cause notice discharged—Main case to be fixed before the original Bench in February 2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---Arts. 175, 176, 191A, 204(c), and 187; Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, Ss. 2 & 2A--- Judicial independence and administrative authority---Scope and interplay between judicial orders and administrative decisions of Committees constituted under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, and Article 191A(4) of the Constitution---Maintainability of Committees' administrative decisions affecting judicial proceedings---Registrar explained non-fixation of cases (CPLA 836-K/2020) based on decisions of two Committees dated 17.01.2025, which referred cases to a Constitutional Bench instead of a Regular Bench---Contention raised that judicial orders fixing cases for hearing before a Bench could not be overridden by administrative decisions of the Committees. Held: (i) Judicial orders, under the constitutional mandate of Articles 175 and 176, cannot be superseded by administrative decisions as this would undermine judicial independence; (ii) All cases pending before the Supreme Court must first be reviewed by the Committee constituted under Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, and any jurisdictional questions must be referred to the Committee constituted under Article 191A(4) as per Section 2A; and (iii) Administrative orders inconsistent with judicial orders are void and have no legal standing. (b) Administration of justice ---Judicial power vis-à-vis procedural regulation by Committees--- Judicial orders fixing cases for hearing cannot be undone or varied by Committees exercising administrative and procedural powers---Judicial independence forms the cornerstone of constitutional governance and cannot be subordinated to administrative decisions. (c) Contempt of court ---Scope of judicial contempt--- Registrar's explanation of non-compliance with judicial orders evaluated---Court determined that the legality of the Registrar’s defense hinged on whether administrative orders of Committees could lawfully override judicial orders, raising substantial questions about judicial independence and procedural regularity. (d) Full Court hearing ---Serious constitutional implications warranting adjudication by Full Court--- Court held that questions concerning the scope of administrative Committees’ authority and their impact on judicial independence should be adjudicated by the Full Court for definitive resolution. ------ Cited Cases: Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 161) Human Rights Case regarding disposal of infectious waste in KP (PLD 2019 SC 183) Muhammad Imtiyaz v. Ch. Muhammad Naeem (PLD 2023 SC 306) ------ Disposition: Hearing adjourned to 23 January 2025 for further arguments. Additional amici curiae appointed to assist the Court, with notice issued to ensure their participation.