Islamabad: Supreme Court of Pakistan Senior Puisne Judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah has raised concerns over the implications of withdrawing cases from judicial benches, suggesting it will undermine judicial independence. Justice Syed Mansoor Alsi Shah remarked that once the case was fixed before the regular bench, the 'committee was done with its job'. 'If the committee is taking back ongoing cases, then the judiciary's independence has ended,' the senior puisne judge observed.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah made these remarks during a contempt of court hearing led by a two-member bench he headed on Tuesday. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi is also the part of the bench.

The case arose after the Registrar of the Supreme Court Muhammad Saleem Khan failed to schedule a hearing for a matter related to bench powers despite a judicial order.

Meanwhile Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi also wondered, 'We do not even know what the future of the current bench would be. We are hearing the case today, [but] it's possible this bench might not even exist tomorrow.' Referring to recent developments, he questioned whether committees can withdraw cases if it appears that a decision might go against the government.

At the start of the hearing, the judges questioned the registrar on why the case was not scheduled as directed. The registrar explained that the matter, initially meant for a constitutional bench, had been mistakenly assigned to a regular bench.

Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi expressed scepticism, asking why the error was only realised now and whether his inclusion in the bench was the real issue since he had previously heard the matter in the high court.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah further inquired about the role of the Practice and Procedure Committee in this matter, asking if it convened independently or acted upon a request.

The registrar admitted to sending a note to the committee, prompting Justice Shah to demand a copy of it. Upon review, the note contradicted the registrar's earlier statements.

The apex court's senior judge pointed out that the note did not acknowledge any error but instead suggested forming a new bench based on an order issued on January 16, which already specified the bench for the case.

The registrar explained that the Practice and Procedure Committee had referred the case to a constitutional bench, which reviewed relevant amendments and scheduled cases accordingly.

However, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah emphasised that once a case is with a judicial bench, the committee's involvement ends.

Allowing committees to withdraw active cases undermines judicial independence. He questioned whether cases could be withdrawn simply because decisions might not favour the government.

Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi added that scheduling the constitutional amendment case had been delayed until the matter came to their bench. He questioned the urgency of withdrawing cases, especially when no constitutional review was required in related tax matters.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah disclosed that on January 17, two committee meetings occurred -one regular and another under Article 191-A(4). He noted his absence from the former, deeming his participation inappropriate given the judicial order. He asserted that an administrative decision cannot override a judicial order.

The senior judge highlighted that judicial orders are binding and asked the registrar to clarify whether the judges' committee had issued any orders permitting case withdrawal from a judicial bench.

He remarked that such actions jeopardise judicial independence, referencing the registrar's tenure at the Peshawar High Court to underline his awareness of these matters.

The registrar countered, stating that the Practice and Procedure Law is an act of parliament, granting the committee authority to withdraw cases.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah warned that such precedents risk eroding trust in judicial processes, allowing case withdrawals to pre-empt unfavourable outcomes.

In light of these complexities, the Supreme Court has appointed senior advocates Senator Hamid Khan and Munir Ahmed Malik as amicus curiae to assist the court.

The bench has also requested input on whether the judges' committee can alter judicial bench allocations despite existing orders.

Additional Attorney General Chaudhry Aamir Rehman argued that the court cannot frame such questions within contempt proceedings.

Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah assured him that his arguments would be heard in detail.

Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed presented arguments during the hearing on Tuesday. Former judge Lahore high court Shahid Jameel Khan and attorney general or additional attorney general along with Hamid Khan and Munir Ahmed Malik will present arguments today (Wednesday).

The hearing on the judicial bench powers case has been adjourned until today (Wednesday).