ISLAMABAD: In a striking development at the Islamabad High Court (IHC), Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan openly defied a two-member division bench’s stay order, raising serious objections over the transfer of a contempt case from his court without his consent.
The controversy stems from contempt proceedings initiated by Justice Khan against the deputy registrar and other court officials. The case revolves around the unauthorized transfer of a petition related to PTI founder Imran Khan’s visitation rights — a move that Justice Khan asserts undermined his judicial authority.
During Friday’s dramatic hearing, Justice Khan questioned the legal standing of the division bench’s intervention, stating, “You are telling this court it has been stopped from conducting contempt proceedings? This is a serious overstepping of authority.”
He strongly asserted that an intra-court appeal (ICA) against an interim order is not maintainable, remarking, “Didn’t the division bench know this? Their order undermines the authority of my senior colleague.”
Justice Khan went further, warning that such judicial overreach could erode public trust in the judiciary. “If I accept this interference, why would anyone respect or follow the orders of this court in the future?” he asked.
Legal and Institutional Clash
The contempt case took on wider significance after Advocate Faisal Siddiqui, appearing as amicus curiae, stated that contempt proceedings could be extended to all involved parties — including potentially other judges — emphasizing that the judiciary is not above accountability.
He cited precedents from Pakistan and India, where judges have issued contempt notices to fellow benches. Responding to Justice Khan’s query about remedies available when a judge’s judicial function is obstructed, Siddiqui said both contempt proceedings and reference to the Supreme Judicial Council were viable options.
Justice Khan also grilled court officials for failing to inform his bench of the ICA. “Were you compelled to file this appeal, or did you act independently? Are you making a mockery of this institution?” he demanded of the deputy and additional registrars.
Judicial Independence vs Administrative Authority
Despite the division bench’s order, Justice Khan made it clear he would continue the contempt proceedings and issue a written judgement.
“Even if I have to sit alone and imagine the presence of others, I will still write the order,” he declared, underscoring his commitment to judicial independence.
In a written response, Additional Registrar Aijaz Ahmed defended the maintainability of appeals against interim contempt orders, citing Paragraph 10 of a judgement dated February 6, 2025, which aligns with a Lahore High Court ruling. He argued that such orders can be challenged if they are “void, without jurisdiction, or coram non judice.”
The court also questioned its earlier reliance on Indian jurisprudence regarding contempt law, asserting that Pakistan’s statute offers broader grounds for appealing contempt-related rulings — not just final or punitive ones.
Internal Rifts Acknowledged
As tensions unfolded in the courtroom, Advocate Siddiqui observed that the situation was giving the impression of internal conflict among IHC judges.
Justice Khan responded frankly: “There is a dispute among judges. Why should I pretend otherwise?”
He concluded the session by stating he would deliver a decisive ruling and adjourned the hearing until June 12.
