Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan questions legality of forming a larger bench without clear justification
DNA
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has directed the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to present the high court rules to determine whether the chief justice has the authority to withdraw a case from a bench.
A key question raised during the proceedings is whether forming a larger bench and conducting judicial proceedings without explicitly addressing prior office objections is legally valid.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan was hearing a contempt of court case against the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) for delisting a contempt petition filed by Mashal Yousafzai against the Jail Superintendent.
He remarked that a final judgment on this issue is necessary, emphasising that there is no legal provision for transferring a case in such a manner.
The judge further noted that if a high court judge had not made this decision, it could have amounted to criminal contempt of court. However, he clarified that he would not issue a contempt notice, stressing that the case is about setting a legal precedent rather than focusing on a political party leader.
During the hearing, Advocate General (AG) Islamabad, Ayaz Shaukat, sought permission to present his argument, saying that he should be allowed to speak just as the court had expressed its views the previous day. He asserted: “If this high court exists, it is because of us. Everyone knows you are not here just for a job or salary.”
He argued that the primary issue was whether Yousafzai remained the legal representative of the PTI founder. He cited a media statement by the PTI founder’s focal person claiming that Yousafzai was no longer his lawyer.
Justice Khan, however, redirected the discussion, saying that the court was not concerned with Yousafzai’s status but rather whether a case pending before a bench could be transferred in such a manner.
Shaukat contended that due to the controversy, all related cases were consolidated before a larger bench. However, Justice Khan countered that if the issue was simply about verifying Yousafzai’s status as legal counsel, a commission had already been appointed to resolve it.
“You could have arranged the meeting, and this matter would have been settled in 30 seconds. Instead, you dragged the court into this situation,” he remarked.
He further said that when a lawyer appears before the court claiming to represent a client, the court does not routinely summon the client to verify the claim. “Hundreds of petitions are filed before us. Do we summon clients to confirm their lawyer’s representation each time?” he questioned.
Justice Khan also highlighted the procedural requirements for merging cases or forming a larger bench. He noted that the presiding judge of the case must submit a written request to the chief justice, who then issues an order.
He questioned whether the parties had been heard before the formation of the larger bench under Section 24, which is typically used for transferring cases from subordinate courts.
He pointed out that the Registrar’s Office initially objected, saying that the Section 24 application was invalid. The chief justice, while agreeing with the objection, still proceeded to form a larger bench.
The judge then asked the AG whether he planned to present arguments before the larger bench on the contempt of court petition, as contempt cases are typically heard by the judge whose order was violated.
He also clarified that the applicant had not insisted on transferring cases to the larger bench, yet the request was still accepted.
“This is not about creating further complications for the High Court. I do not want to leave behind any unpleasant situation for myself or my colleagues. The credibility and prestige of the Islamabad High Court matter the most to me,” he stressed.
The court instructed the Advocate General to maintain a clear and consistent stance before the larger bench, stating that he could not adopt conflicting positions in different courtrooms.
The hearing was adjourned until after Eid.
