ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has launched suo motu contempt proceedings after the abrupt removal of a case concerning the prison superintendent’s failure to arrange a meeting between Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his lawyer, Mashal Yousafzai, from the court’s cause list.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, who was originally presiding over the case, questioned the sudden delisting and directed the judicial deputy registrar to submit a written explanation. Additionally, he sought a response from the Advocate General of Islamabad regarding the decision to transfer the case to another bench.
Formation of Larger Bench and Judicial Concerns
The removal of the case followed an order by IHC Acting Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar, who directed the formation of a larger bench to hear over 20 petitions related to the visitation rights of incarcerated PTI founder Imran Khan.
Expressing strong reservations, Justice Ejaz sharply criticized the move, questioning whether the state supported transferring cases without the presiding judge’s consent. He remarked:
“Instead of doing this, you might as well plant explosives under my court and blow it up.”
During the proceedings, Deputy Registrar Judicial Sultan Mehmood appeared before the court and stated that the delisting was done following directives from the IHC chief justice’s office. He further confirmed that the chief justice had formed a larger bench to handle the matter.
Judicial Independence at Risk?
Justice Ejaz raised critical concerns regarding the chief justice’s authority to reassign cases without the consent of the presiding judge, warning of potential misuse:
“What if a highly corrupt chief justice in the future arbitrarily transfers cases? Would such a system not encourage corruption and nepotism?”
The judge also demanded clarification on the legal basis under which the miscellaneous application for the case transfer was filed. He condemned the interference in judicial proceedings, emphasizing that such actions undermine the judiciary’s independence.
“The IHC rules do not allow a chief justice to transfer a case without the presiding judge’s approval. What you are doing out of ego will unravel the very fabric of the high court,” he stated.
Contempt of Court Warning
Expressing further frustration, Justice Ejaz questioned whether a judge should be at the mercy of the registrar’s office, emphasizing that the ongoing interference amounted to contempt of court.
“Should the registrar’s office decide which judge hears a case? If this is a battle of egos, my presence in this court is meaningless.”
The court’s intervention signals growing tensions within the judiciary over judicial independence and procedural integrity. The developments in this case are expected to have far-reaching implications on the administration of justice in Pakistan.
