In a significant development at the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail announced that he would no longer participate in committee meetings following a recent contempt of court ruling. The remarks came during a hearing before a six-member bench, which was addressing an intra-court appeal filed by Additional Registrar Nazeer Abbas against a show-cause notice issued to him.
The case stems from a two-member bench’s decision to hold Abbas in contempt of court. During the hearing, Justice Athar Minallah referenced the ruling, stating that while there is an issue at hand, the decision has not been formally challenged before the bench. He emphasized that the court can only review the decision if it is contested. Justice Shahid Waheed added that the authority to take suo motu notice of the matter lies with the constitutional bench.
Justice Mandokhail expressed concerns over the manner in which the contempt ruling was issued, stating that it has become a matter of judicial propriety. He called for a thorough examination of the circumstances surrounding the initiation of contempt proceedings, questioning whether the decisions of committees had been challenged before the bench. “I hear every day that there is a conflict of interest, so we should not sit,” he remarked, highlighting the challenges faced by judges in balancing their duties.
The judge further questioned the benefits of serving on the constitutional bench, noting that judges are already handling multiple benches daily. “If sitting on the constitutional bench is in our interest, then those who do not participate will be among the affected,” he said, adding that such a scenario might necessitate bringing in judges from neighboring countries to resolve conflicts.
Justice Mandokhail reiterated his stance on abstaining from committee meetings, stating that he would not attend until the contempt of court notices are resolved. He expressed a desire to prevent future judges from facing similar contempt charges, emphasizing that the judiciary’s sole interest lies in upholding the Constitution.
During the proceedings, Justice Athar Minallah also commented on the broader political and judicial landscape, referencing a statement by a senior politician who claimed that democracy is absent in the country and that the Constitution is not being followed. He lamented that neither judges, politicians, nor the nation has learned from history, particularly in light of past judicial interventions.
The hearing concluded with the court disposing of the case after the petitioner withdrew the application. The developments underscore the ongoing tensions within the judiciary and the challenges of maintaining judicial independence and propriety in a complex legal and political environment.
