Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, the senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court, has raised objections to the formation of a larger bench by a committee set up under the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, to hear an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) involving the Additional Registrar's contempt of court case.
On Thursday, a two-member bench, consisting of Justice Mansoor and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, had reserved its decision on the contempt of court notice. Justice Mansoor later shared his concerns in a note to the committee, delivered through WhatsApp. He explained that after a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan on Thursday, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) called an informal meeting with him and Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. It was decided to form a larger bench to hear the appeal.
Justice Mansoor suggested a five-member bench, excluding any judges with potential conflicts of interest. However, the CJP preferred a four-member bench, and the meeting ended. Later, Justice Mansoor received a message from his secretary asking for approval of a six-member bench, but he raised objections and said he would address it the next day. However, he was informed that the bench had already been formed and the roster issued by the majority decision of the committee.
Justice Mansoor's main concern was that judges with conflicts of interest, such as Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, should not be on the bench. He also noted that he hadn't had a chance to formally voice his opinion on the matter, as the file was never sent to his office. He requested that his objections be recorded in the committee's decision.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's divisional bench has withdrawn the contempt of court notice against Additional Registrar Judicial Nazar Abbas. However, the divisional bench observed that members of the two committees—the regular committee and the constitutional bench committee—disregarded the judicial order.
The divisional bench, headed by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, has recommended that the matter be placed before the full court for further proceedings. "It appears that the matter needs to proceed further against the members of the two committees," said a 20-page judgment.
It added, "However, judicial propriety and decorum demand that the question be considered and decided by the Full Court of the Supreme Court so that it is authoritatively decided once and for all."