IHC initiates suo motu contempt proceedings over delisting of case

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has initiated suo motu contempt proceedings after a case concerning the prison superintendent’s failure to arrange a meeting between the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder and his lawyer, Mashal Yousafzai, was removed from the cause list.

Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, who was originally presiding over the case, questioned the removal and ordered the judicial deputy registrar to submit a written response and further sought a reply from the Advocate General of Islamabad regarding the decision to delist the case and transfer it to another bench. The court’s action comes after the case was delisted following the formation of a larger bench pursuant to the orders issued by IHC Acting Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar who, on Monday, also directed to merge over 20 pleas pertaining to meeting rights of incarcerated Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan.

Expressing strong reservations during the hearing, Justice Ejaz remarked: “Does the state support transferring a case to a larger bench without the [relevant] judge’s consent? Instead of doing this, you might as well plant explosives under my court and blow it up.”

Deputy Registrar Judicial Sultan Mehmood appeared before the court and stated that the case had been delisted following directives from the IHC chief justice’s office. He added that the IHC CJ had formed a larger bench to hear the matter. However, Justice Ejaz questioned whether the chief justice had the authority to transfer a case under trial before another judge without their consent. “What if a highly corrupt chief justice in the future uses this power to arbitrarily transfer cases? Would such a system not encourage corruption and nepotism?” he asked. Justice Ejaz further inquired under which law the miscellaneous application for the transfer of the case was filed.

The judge also criticized the interference in judicial proceedings, saying that such actions undermine the principles of justice. “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 added.

Justice Ejaz further remarked that if the state had decided to pursue a battle of egos, his presence in the court held no meaning. “Should the judge be at the mercy of the registrar’s office? Will the [registrar’s] office decide which judge hears a case?” he questioned. He also warned that the ongoing actions amounted to contempt of court.

The deputy registrar judicial responded by stating that the matter had been referred to the chief justice’s office for guidance, which then decided to transfer the case to a larger bench. To this, Justice Ejaz remarked: “The larger bench is acting in contempt of this court’s proceedings.”

Questioning the overall fairness of the case, Advocate Shoaib Shaheen noted that neither the state nor the prison superintendent were directly affected parties in this case. Lawyer Yousafzai also raised concerns about broader implications, saying: “If this is happening to us in open court, one can only imagine how PTI’s founder and Bushra Bibi are treated in prison.” Justice Ejaz acknowledged her concerns but emphasized that the integrity of the judiciary was at stake. “The guided missile that was directed towards you is now coming for us,” he observed, before adjourning the hearing until the next day.

It is pertinent to mention that in the previous hearing, Justice Ejaz had ordered the PTI founder’s appearance in person or via video link, but prison authorities cited security threats as a reason for non-compliance. Consequently, a judicial commission was formed to determine whether Yousafzai was legally representing the PTI founder in any case. The following day, the prison superintendent consolidated all requests for meetings with the PTI founder and requested that they be placed before a larger bench.

On March 17, Acting Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar approved this request and formed a three-member bench under his chairmanship. Following this, Justice Ejaz’s case was delisted, prompting the suo motu contempt proceedings.