IHC suspends contempt proceedings against immigration DG

ISLAMABAD: A division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has issued a new order suspending the contempt-of-court proceedings against the immigration & passports director general.

The court has restrained the single bench from proceeding with the contempt-of-court action against the DG until a decision is made on the intra-court appeal. The court expressed surprise at the continuation of judicial proceedings by the single bench.

It stated that it is difficult to understand how the single judge issued a new order based on the suspended ruling. Advancing proceedings by the single bench despite the suspension is contrary to legal principles and undermines the authority of the appellate court.

The division bench, consisting of Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, has issued a written ruling regarding the intra-court appeal of the immigration & passports DG. In the written ruling, the stay order against the contempt-of-court proceedings by the single bench has been maintained, and the order issued by the single bench on April 28 has also been suspended.

Justice Babar Sattar had issued an order on April 28 after hearing the case, despite the stay order being in effect and the case not being listed in the cause list.

The division bench also provided a detailed explanation of the term “suspension” in the court order, stating that the record shows that on March 26, the division bench suspended the single bench’s order and directed the consolidation of the case.

“It appears that there is some misunderstanding regarding the meaning of the term ‘suspension’, which needs clarification. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, ‘suspension’ means to temporarily stop, halt or create a pause in something.

“The term ‘suspend’ does not mean to cancel or terminate a permission or licence, but rather to temporarily deprive someone of that permission or right. It is also used to prevent a public officer, lawyer or religious figure from performing their duties for a certain period.”

The court order further stated that in the current case, the court had clearly suspended the judicial order, which meant that the order was no longer effective, and any legal or practical action based on it could not be deemed valid.

“Enforcement of the suspended order remains impossible until it is reinstated. Judicial discipline requires that if an appellate forum suspends an order, the court should refrain from proceeding. Advancing proceedings by the single bench despite the suspension is contrary to legal principles and undermines the authority of the appellate court.”