Islamabad, January 27, 2025: Supreme Court Justice Jamal Mandokhail announced his decision to abstain from a committee meeting in protest against being found guilty of contempt of court by a two-member bench in the Additional Registrar contempt case.
During a six-member bench hearing on an intra-court appeal challenging the show-cause notice issued to Supreme Court Additional Registrar Nazar Abbas, Justice Athar Minallah highlighted that the contempt ruling by the two-member bench had not been formally challenged. “We can only review a decision if it has been properly contested,” he said.
Justice Shahid Waheed noted that the authority to initiate suo moto action lies exclusively with a constitutional bench, while Justice Musarrat Hilali questioned, “Are we, God forbid, committing contempt of court ourselves right now?”
Justice Mandokhail called for a comprehensive review of the situation to resolve the ongoing controversies. “We need to thoroughly examine how this contempt proceeding began. Were the committee’s decisions challenged before this bench?” he queried.
Commenting on conflicts of interest, Justice Mandokhail stated, “There is constant talk of conflicts of interest, yet we continue to preside over cases. If sitting on a constitutional bench constitutes a conflict of interest, then none of us would qualify to hear such cases, and we might need judges from neighboring countries.”
He further questioned the notion of personal benefits derived from serving on a constitutional bench, emphasizing that their only objective is to protect the Constitution. “I will not attend the committee meeting due to the way I was held guilty of contempt of court. This cycle of contempt notices must end to safeguard future judges from similar proceedings,” he said.
Justice Athar Minallah also expressed concerns over a senior politician’s statement alleging that the country is not being governed according to the Constitution. “It is unfortunate that neither judges, politicians, nor the nation have learned from history,” he remarked, adding that the judiciary’s warnings have often been ignored.
When asked whether the petitioner had requested a full court hearing before the two-member bench, Advocate Shahid Jamil affirmed that he was making the same request before the current bench.
Justice Mandokhail cautioned that issuing an order for a full court might lead to further contempt proceedings if the order is not implemented.
The case was subsequently disposed of after the petitioner decided to withdraw the appeal.
