Pakistan's top court faces scrutiny over jurisdiction of new bench

Pakistan’s embattled judicial system is under scrutiny again, as questions about the jurisdiction of the newly established constitutional bench spark debate.

On Monday, a case challenging the bench’s jurisdiction was transferred from a regular bench to the constitutional bench, raising concerns about a conflict of interest. The case has been rescheduled for Jan. 27.

Adding to the controversy, the case was initially assigned to Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, a senior Supreme Court judge and contender for chief justice. Shah has been a vocal critic of the 26th Constitutional Amendment, which led to the formation of constitutional benches.

To underline his opposition, Shah, along with five other senior judges, boycotted the farewell ceremony of former Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa in October, calling Isa “an ostrich with his head in the sand.”

Critics argue that the amendment has created a dual justice system, with separate benches hearing cases, resulting in confusion about jurisdiction and authority.

Shah caught unaware

The transfer decision was reportedly made during a judges’ committee meeting without notifying Shah, raising questions about transparency.

“I was not informed about the meeting, although I am an active member of the committee,” Shah said.

During Monday’s hearing, a three-member bench led by Shah addressed the issue of jurisdiction.

Barrister Salahuddin appeared before the bench, stating that he had traveled from Karachi to Islamabad for the case, only to find it had been postponed.

Shah sought clarification from Additional Registrar Supreme Court Nazar Abbas. Following a brief recess, Deputy Registrar Zulfiqar Ali informed the court that the judges’ committee had decided to reschedule the case before the constitutional bench.

Expressing surprise, Shah demanded the meeting’s minutes and an explanation for the change. “We will reconvene once the information is provided,” he said.

Justice Ayesha Malik also expressed frustration, stating that case schedules had been altered without prior notice.

The court issued a show-cause notice to the additional registrar for contempt of court and summoned him. It criticized the judges’ committee for overriding an earlier directive to schedule the case before the regular bench and canceling tax-related cases without explanation.

Decision-making under question

Malik criticized the delegation of decision-making to a research officer. “Is it now up to a research officer to decide which cases go to a constitutional bench?” she asked.

Shah added, “The judges’ committee, if it wished, could have reconstituted the entire bench, but it does not have the authority to cancel cases altogether.”

The court cited a past suo motu case involving journalists, where it was decided that any matter referred to the chief justice must be addressed transparently.

“How can one chief justice be better than the collective wisdom of two or three minds?” Malik questioned.

Shah emphasized that the disappearance of the case from schedules undermines the judicial process. “Such actions cannot be tolerated,” he said.

The court adjourned the hearing until Tuesday, reaffirming its commitment to accountability and transparency within the judiciary.