ISLAMABAD: A five-member larger bench of the Supreme Court will take up today (Monday) the long awaited contempt-of-court cases against the judges who had taken oath under the November 3, 2007 Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) in defiance of its (SC) restraining order.
The bench comprising Justice Muhammad Sair Ali, Justice Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Justice Jawwad S Khawaja, Justice Khilji Arif Hussain and Justice Tariq Parvez will also hear replies and review petitions of the PCO judges. Attorney General of Pakistan (AGP) Anwarul Haq will appear on notice. The cases are pending since July 8.
Earlier on July 8, a five-judge larger bench headed by Justice Nasirul Mulk had dismissed a review petition jointly filed by four sitting judges against whom contempt notices had been issued for taking oath under the PCO in defiance of its restraining order of Nov 3, 2007. The bench had overruled an objection raised by the counsel of the petitioners on the presence of two senior members on the bench who had earlier declined to hear the matter.
The review petitions were filed by justices Hasnat Ahmed Khan, Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry (former LHC Chief Justice) and Justice Hamid Ali Shah after the rejection of their intra-court appeal.
Dr Basit, the counsel for the judges, had raised a preliminary objection on the presence of Justice Nasirul Mulk and Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed on the bench, saying that they had earlier recused (separate) themselves from the bench. But the bench had overruled the objection asking Dr Basit to argue the matter on merits.
The counsel then had raised the plea of bias by alluding to two cases from the Indian jurisdiction in aid of his arguments. “The judges I am defending are standing in the dock as they took oath under the PCO because they are guilty of reading the 2002 Zafar Ali Shah case in which it was held that preservation of the judicial system is the duty of the judges,” Basit had argued, adding that the CJP was part of that bench which validated General Musharraf’s first coup.
The four judges had challenged through appeals the contempt notices issued to them and had requested the apex court to set aside the notices because the appellants were sitting judges and no contempt proceedings could be initiated against any judge of the superior court.
Besides, contempt proceedings against them would mean proceedings against the high court as they were an integral part of the high court – something not allowed or contemplated by the Constitution.
“Moreover, a judge of the high court is never treated to be a person against whom contempt proceedings could be initiated. There is also no instance in the world where such proceedings are initiated against a sitting judge.
But the court office had refused to accept their appeals and returned the same after which they instituted intra-court appeals which too got dismissed,” the judges had argued in their earlier appeals.
