IHC issues contempt notices to PM Shehbaz, cabinet in Dr. Aafia case
Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday issued contempt of court notices to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and members of his federal cabinet over non-compliance in the case concerning efforts for the release of Dr Aafia Siddiqui.
The court directed the federal government to submit a response within two weeks.
A written order, authored by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, noted a pattern of repeated executive defiance and interference in judicial functions.
"Despite the court order, the federal government failed to submit reasons before the court," the IHC said. "The court has no option left but to issue a contempt of court notice to the federal government."
Justice Ejaz remarked that the judiciary had been under persistent attack.
'We have witnessed one attack after another on the pillars of justice. These attacks have repeatedly wounded the justice system and brought it to the verge of collapse.'
He further stated, 'today, yet another example of assault on the judiciary has come to light.'
Referring to administrative interference in the court's functioning, Justice Ejaz observed, 'justice delivery by one high court judge was being controlled through a weekly roster under the office of the Chief Justice.'
'This situation is both horrifying and absurd at the same time,' he said. 'It is a contradiction that has now become the hallmark of this high court.'
Justice Ejaz also recalled that since the 26th Constitutional Amendment, a so-called 'demolition squad' had been effectively brought into the high court.
'The executive's tricks became evident elsewhere,' he said, adding that court proceedings were being restricted through the roster mechanism.
He pointed out that judges wishing to hear cases during judicial vacations were denied permission by the court's administration.
'If a judge wishes to hold court during vacations to deliver justice, the high court administration will not permit it,' he said.
The judge added that the government had been given ample opportunity to comply.
'The court had given the government an opportunity to present its report,' Justice Ejaz said.
The Assistant Attorney General was warned earlier that contempt proceedings would be initiated if the report was not filed.
Rather than submit the report, the government filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the order to submit an amended application, the court noted.
'For whatever reason, the Supreme Court did not hear the government's case,' Justice Ejaz remarked.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
10 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Dr Aafia case: IHC issues contempt notice to PM, cabinet
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) issued contempt notices to the prime minister and the federal cabinet in a petition filed by Dr Fowzia Siddiqui, seeking the repatriation, health status, and release of her sister, Dr Aafia Siddiqui, who is imprisoned in the United States of America. A single bench of Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, on Monday, hearing Siddiqui's petition, issued the notices against the prime minister and members of the federal cabinet over the government's failure to submit a report in the Dr Aafia Siddiqui case. Justice Ejaz expressed strong displeasure over the government for not submitting the required report about why the government was refusing to sign an amicus brief on Aafia case. He noted in his written order, 'The government has not reverted with the reasons despite being directed to do so, it is in contempt, leaving me with no option but to issue a notice of contempt to the Federal Government.' The IHC office is directed to initiate a contempt petition accordingly, in which all the members of the federal government will be respondents. The replies of all the Ministers, including the Prime Minister, shall be filed within two weeks from today (July 21). Justice Ejaz stated that ever since the demolition squad was catapulted into this High Court after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, they have seen one heresy after another hurled at the edifice of justice, maiming it repeatedly, and bringing it almost to its last breaths. 'This is yet another instance. The heresy I speak of now is besieging the dispensation of Justice by a Judge of the High Court by the device of the 'weekly roster' controlled by the office of the Chief Justice. It is both heart-rending and amusing at the same time, a blend of paradox that this High Court has become,' said the judge. Justice Ejaz mentioned that he had passed the previous order giving the government time to revert with its decision, while cautioning the Additional Advocate General that inaction would leave him no choice but to proceed in contempt. The government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against his earlier decision permitting amendments to the petition for continuation of this case. He stated that for whatever reason, the government's case had not been taken up by the Supreme Court. The machinations of the executive appeared elsewhere, in the form of controlling the proceedings of this Court through its roster. 'The legal historians would write that now, even if he wishes to by reason of imperatives of urgent justice, a judge is now not allowed to hold Court by the High Court establishment when he is on leave,' added the judge. He pointed out that his leave was meant to start today and the roster of judges sitting for this week therefore did not include his name. 'The leave schedule was announced much earlier to the date on which I had ordered to list this case today, given its importance and the need for swift dispensation of justice in this and the other eases that ordered for listing today.' The judge also said that on Thursday or perhaps Friday, he was informed through his PS by the Office that the cause list will not be issued unless the roster of the sitting judges for this week was amended with the leave of the Chief Justice. That seemed to me a trivial matter and he asked his PS to move an application accordingly. He further said that he was informed on Saturday that the application was duly moved but the file remained on the table of the Chief Justice, who did not find even 30 seconds to sign it. He maintained, 'Whether that was by design or oversight, I cannot say for sure, but given the manner in which the roster of judges has been used as a tool for the desired outcome in specific cases, and given the government's stiff opposition to do what is right and to stand by the daughter of the nation at the critical juncture of the Motion before a US Court, I may be forgiven for thinking that it was the former. The correct legal position is that the Office cannot use the shoulder of the Chief Justice in the exercise of administrative powers to obstruct judicial proceedings ordered by a Judge in an ongoing case.' Justice Ejaz stated that the motivation of a Judge to hold Court on a day on which he is 'officially' on leave would spell out whether the reason to hold Court was any ulterior motive or the dispensation of justice. 'I trust that all right thinking men and women would agree with me that today my decision to hold Court was solely and exclusively for the purposes of dispensation of justice. Gone are the days when a Judge could pass an order even while playing Golf or dining with his family if the exigency so required. The ceremony of robes and a Courtroom – or the menial triviality of a cause list as in this case – were never the indispensable prerequisites for him to carry out judicial business. He said this is yet another instance of the reproachable use of the administrative power to shackle the exercise of independent judicial authority, with the likely motivation to pend (until my leave ends) the government's response with reasons as to why it would not sign the amicus brief. However, the imperatives of justice shall not be defeated by such petty means. 'To the extent I can, I will exercise my judicial authority to the end of upholding the dignity of the High Court and the justice it dispenses.' Later, the bench deferred hearing of the case until September 1. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
10 hours ago
- Business Recorder
‘The mere pendency of any appeal, revision, or constitutional petition does not, of itself, stay the execution or implementation of the order impugned': SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court clarified that mere pendency of any appeal, revision, or constitutional petition does not, of itself, stay the execution or implementation of the order impugned. A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, ruled that while hearing the petitions of Chief Land Commissioner and Punjab/ Senior Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore against the Lahore High Court (LHC)'s order. The same bench, in dismissal of the application for pre-arrest bail by the LHC on 19.11.2024, maintained; 'Prompt and faithful enforcement of judicial orders is fundamental to the criminal justice system. Once pre-arrest bail is declined by a competent court of law and the accused stands exposed to arrest in accordance with law.' Both the judgments were authored by Yahya Afridi. In revenue department case, the judgment noted that the LHC over a decade ago directed revenue authorities to re-decide the matter in accordance with law. Despite such clear directions, the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur, failed to act, resulting in unreasonable and unexplained delay. The judgment said when superior courts issue remand directions, they are to be complied with faithfully and expeditiously. Such failure is contrary to the constitutional duty of all authorities to act in aid of judicial orders. It clarified; 'The mere pendency of any appeal, revision, or constitutional petition does not, of itself, stay the execution or implementation of the order impugned. This principle is expressly embodied in Order XX Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The judgment noted that in Rashid Baig vs. Muhammad Mansha (2024 SCMR 1385) the apex court made it clear; 'that mere pendency of a petition before this Court does not, by itself, operate as a stay of proceedings, which may only be lawfully restrained by an express injunctive order of the Court. Thus, administrative inaction premised on the mere pendency of further proceedings, without any lawful restraint, is both unjustified and impermissible.' The judgment said regrettable that despite the clear pronouncement of this Court in Rashid Baig's case expressing disapproval of such misuse of procedural pendency, the same practice continues unabated. This reflects not merely individual lapses, but a persistent pattern of administrative disregard for binding remand orders, which in itself constitutes systemic failure requiring urgent redress. The judgment reiterated that failure by the relevant authorities to observe established principles requiring prompt compliance with remand orders would frustrate the administration of justice and violate their constitutional duty. In dismissal of pre-arrest bail case, the Supreme Court clarified that any practice whereby police authorities treat the mere filing of a petition before the Supreme Court as an implied stay or bar to arrest, despite the dismissal of pre-arrest bail, indicates a misunderstanding of the purpose of pre-arrest bail. This relief exists as an exceptional measure to protect individuals against arbitrary or malafide arrest, where circumstances clearly warrant such protection. Once a competent court has declined pre-arrest bail, it has necessarily determined that no such exceptional circumstances exist and arrest is lawful and necessary to ensure an effective investigation. Allowing the mere act of filing another petition to operate as a de facto stay would render that judicial determination meaningless, defeat the objective of ensuring prompt and fair investigation, and risk abuse of process by enabling accused persons to indefinitely evade arrest without any legal basis. Therefore, judicial orders must remain binding and enforceable unless and until a competent court expressly orders otherwise. It must be remembered that interim protection is not automatic; it must be specifically sought and expressly granted. Absent such an order, a refusal of bail remains fully operative and must be implemented promptly and in good faith by investigating authorities. The Court said the practice of delaying or avoiding arrest on the pretext of a pending petition raises serious concerns, as it essentially frustrates and weakens ongoing investigations and undermines the authority and finality of judicial orders. In addition, such a practice risks promoting a culture of impunity, enabling accused persons to evade the process of law by exploiting systemic inaction. The judgment said that investigating officers and police authorities are legally bound to act upon court orders dismissing pre-arrest bail immediately, without waiting for further instructions or presuming the existence of any stay where none has been granted. Administrative convenience, internal practice, or mere pendency of higher-forum proceedings cannot justify or excuse failure to act in accordance with law. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
15 hours ago
- Express Tribune
IHC startscontempt case against PM, cabinet
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has initiated contempt proceedings against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his entire cabinet for disregarding its order to provide reasons for not assisting a US court hearing the case of incarcerated neuroscientist Dr Aafia Siddiqui. "As the government has not reverted with the reasons despite being directed to do so, it is in contempt, leaving me with no option but to issue a notice of contempt to the Federal Government. "Office is directed to initiate a contempt petition accordingly, in which all the members of the Federal Government will be respondents. The replies of all the ministers, including the prime minister, shall be filed within two weeks from today," said a three-page order authored by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan. The judge noted that in his last order he had given the government time to revert with its decision, while cautioning the state law officer that inaction would result in contempt proceedings. The federal government on July 15 approached the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the May 16, 2025, order of the IHC that allowed amendments to a previously settled petition concerning Dr Aafia Siddiqui - nearly a decade after its filing. The SC, however, has not yet listed the petition for hearing. Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan was to go on summer vacation from Monday (July 21). However, he had announced at the last hearing that he would hear the case on July 21. Interestingly, the IHC did not list the case for hearing before his bench. The judge, nevertheless, heard the case on Monday and later issued a blistering order, criticizing IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and the entire "demolition squad catapulted into" the IHC after the 26th amendment. Justice Khan noted that the leave schedule was announced much earlier to the date on which he had ordered to list this case today, given its importance and the need for swift dispensation of justice "On Thursday or perhaps Friday, I was informed through my PS [personal secretary] by the office that the cause list will not be issued unless the roster of the sitting judges for this week was amended with the leave of the chief justice. "That seemed to me a trivial matter and I asked my PS to move an application accordingly. I was informed on Saturday that the application was duly moved but the file remained on the table of the Chief Justice, who did not find even 30 seconds to sign it. "Whether that was by design or oversight, I cannot say for sure, but given the manner in which the roster of judges has been used as a tool for the desired outcome in specific cases, and given the government's stiff opposition to do what is right and to stand by the daughter of the nation at the critical juncture of the motion before a US Court, I may be forgiven for thinking that it was the former." He said the government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against his earlier decision permitting amendments to the petition for continuation of this case but the SC did not take up the case. "[So] the machinations of the executive appeared elsewhere, in the form of controlling the proceedings of this court through its roster. "The legal historians would write that now, even if he wishes to by reason of imperatives of urgent justice, a judge is now not allowed to hold court by the high court establishment when he is on leave." He stated that the correct legal position is that the office cannot use the shoulder of the CJ in the exercise of administrative powers to obstruct judicial proceedings ordered by a judge. He said the motivation of a judge to hold court on a day on which he is officially' on leave would spell out whether the reason to hold court was any ulterior motive or the dispensation of justice. "I trust that all right thinking men and women would agree with me that today my decision to hold court was solely and exclusively for the purposes of dispensation of justice. He said gone were the days when a judge could pass an order even while playing golf or dining with his family, if the exigency so required. The ceremony of robes and a courtroom – or the menial triviality of a cause list as in this case were never the indispensable prerequisites for him to carry out judicial business. "This is yet another instance of the reproachable use of the administrative power to shackle the exercise of independent judicial authority, with the likely motivation to pend (until my leave ends) the government's response with reasons as to why it would not sign the amicus brief. "However, the imperatives of justice shall not be defeated by such petty means. To the extent I can, I will exercise my judicial authority to the end of upholding the dignity of the High Court and the justice it dispenses," he added. The bench will resume hearing the case on September 1.
