Another IHC judge defies two-judge order

ISLAMABAD: In a dramatic courtroom session, another judge of the Islamabad High Court ‘defied’ a two-judge order, as Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan raised serious objections to a stay order in a contempt case initiated over the transfer of a petition from his court without his consent.

The contempt proceedings, initiated against the deputy registrar and others, have now become the centre of a significant legal and institutional controversy.

Interestingly, amicus curiae and senior advocate Faisal Siddiqui suggested to the court that contempt proceedings could be initiated against all concerned, including the judge, stating that even the judiciary was not above accountability.

The contempt proceedings were initiated against court officials after the acting chief justice consolidated identical petitions related to PTI founder Imran Khan’s visitation and fixed them before a three-member larger bench.

Advocate Siddiqui pointed out that there are precedents in both Pakis­tani and Indian jurisprudence where a judge issued contempt of court notices to another bench.

When Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan asked whether a judge could move the Supreme Judicial Council for being obstructed in the administration of justice, Mr Siddiqui replied that invoking the contempt law was also an appropriate course of action.

Upon resuming the hearing, Justice Khan was informed that a two-member division bench had suspended the contempt proceedings.

“You are telling this court that it has been stopped from conducting contempt proceedings? This is a serious overstepping of authority,” Justice Khan remarked, questioning both the legality and the basis of the division bench’s intervention.

He reiterated the legal principle that an intra-court appeal (ICA) against an interim order is not admissible. “Didn’t the division bench also know that an ICA against an interim order is not admissible?” he asked. “This order goes against the authority of my senior colleague.”

Justice Khan warned that such judicial overreach could damage public trust in the courts. “If I accept this overstepping of authority, why will litigants have faith in my court? Why would anyone implement the orders issued by this court tomorrow?” he asked.

He also questioned the conduct of court officials, particularly regarding the lack of communication with his bench about the ICA. “Were you forced to file an appeal, or did you act on your own? Are you making a joke of the Islamabad High Court?” he asked the deputy and additional registrars.

Despite the institutional tension, Justice Khan made it clear that he would proceed with the case. “I will proceed with this contempt of court action and write the decision. I will write whether the Chief Justice has the authority to withdraw the contempt case from a judge,” he asserted.

The courtroom witnessed moments of intense reflection and resolve. “Let me make one thing clear — even if I have to sit alone and pretend that people are sitting in front of me, I will still write the order,” the judge declared, underscoring his commitment to judicial independence.

In his written reply, Additional Registrar Aijaz Ahmed stated that appeals against interim orders in contempt of court cases are maintainable if such orders suffer from legal defects or jurisdictional flaws.

The decision, outlined in Paragraph 10 of the judgement dated Feb 6, 2025, overturns a previous precedent and aligns with a ruling of the Lahore High Court, signalling a significant shift in the interpretation of contempt laws.

The reply further clarified that interim orders can be challenged if they are “inherently without jurisdiction, void, or coram non judice” (decided by an unauthorised forum).

The court criticised its earlier reliance on Indian contempt law, emphasising that Pakistan’s statute uses broader language — allowing appeals against any contempt-related orders, not just final or punitive ones.

Advocate Faisal Siddiqui said the situation was creating the impression of a dispute among IHC judges.

Justice Khan responded candidly: “There is a dispute among the judges, why should I pretend otherwise?”

He concluded by stating that he would issue a befitting judgement and adjourned the hearing until June 12.

Published in Dawn, May 17th, 2025