IHC deputy registrar told to explain if CJ has power to withdraw contempt case without concerned judge’s consent

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court’s Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan has directed the deputy registrar of the court to explain through rules where the chief justice has the power to withdraw a contempt case without the consent of the judge concerned.

The court observed that this question assumes more importance in a contempt case because no one can be a better judge than the judge whose order is being disobeyed.

It further said this case is not just about the leader of a political party but about the principle applicable to every case.

The IHC observed that this case is also about the power of the chief justice to transfer a case from any judge using administrative power. It issued a detailed order in a suo motu contempt of court case against the deputy registrar judicial and others with regard to the transfer the contempt of court proceedings to another bench.

The high court observed in the order that on the court’s direction, the acting chief justice’s March 17 order to constitute a larger bench by combining all the cases related to the PTI founder’s jail meetings was brought on record. The advocate general’s assistance was also sought to help the court to understand the court order.

The IHC observed that the first part of paragraph 2 seems to record that the petitioner did not press his prayer for transfer, but the latter part of the same paragraph seems to grant the same prayer by way of consolidation, which obviously could not happen without the transfer.

It further stated that it is obvious that the cases could not be consolidated without transferring them, and directed the advocate general to assist the court in this regard at the next hearing.

The court observed that it appears that the application was moved before the acting chief justice under Section 24 of the CPC. It said the advocate general, with some reluctance, conceded, after reading Section 24 that it did not apply, because a bench of a high court is not a subordinate court for the purposes of Section 24 of the CPC. It said that is why the office placed the said application under objection before the acting chief justice.

The IHC observed that it does not appear by the order of March 17, 2025 constituting the larger bench that this objection was addressed with reasons before overruling it.

The court said that too is contrary to the practice and procedure of the court whereby reasons are given for overruling an office objection, especially the ones which are not formal (such as certified copies not attached) but relate to the maintainability of an application, so that transparency is maintained.

It said it is not visible in the acting chief justice’s order to constitute a larger bench that the reasons for removing the objection have been written. The court observed that not writing the reasons for removing the objection is also against the practice and procedure of the Islamabad High Court. For the sake of transparency, the reasons for removing objections, especially regarding the admissibility of the application, are written.

The court observed that no legal precedent could be presented at present for withdrawing a case under hearing from the court. It said the advocate general mentioned a provision of the Lahore High Court Rules regarding the formation of benches, but it is irrelevant. The court observed that judicial assistants will be appointed on a future date and they will also assist the court in the matter on April 11.