ISLAMABAD – Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan remarked that had the transfer of Imran Khan’s meeting cases not been done by a High Court judge, it would have amounted to criminal contempt of court.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan gave these remarks while hearing a suo motu contempt of court case against the deputy registrar.
During the hearing, the judge asked whether the case had been numbered.
Advocate general argued that yesterday, the court expressed its concerns, and today, he wished to do the same. He stated that the core issue arose from whether Mishal Yousafzai was the legal counsel for PTI founder or not. He added that PTI’s focal person, Niazullah Niazi, had given a statement on the matter.
The court asked whether a case could be transferred from one bench to another in such a manner.
The advocate general recalled that the court had remarked yesterday that if justice could not be ensured, then the judge should not preside. He further argued that Niazullah Niazi, who was present in court, should have clarified the matter himself. He urged the court to summon Niazi for questioning.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan emphasized that if the matter was so simple, it would not have required a commission. He stated that PTI founder could have simply denied Mishal Yousafzai was his lawyer, but instead, obstacles were created, leading to delays, including keeping a law clerk waiting for over three hours for a matter that could have been resolved in seconds.
The judge further remarked that if a lawyer claims to represent a client, the court cannot outright reject the claim. If the opposing party disputes it, the court must ask the accused directly. He questioned what he, as a judge, should have done, emphasizing that the contempt case was meant as a learning experience.
The advocate general stated that 37 cases were pending in this matter. The court responded that even if 10,000 cases were pending, it was still the concerned court’s prerogative to request a case transfer or a larger bench. The Advocate General clarified that the request for a larger bench did not come from his office but from the Superintendent of Adiala Jail.
The court then directed for the relevant legal provisions regarding bench transfer to be read aloud.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan asked whether all parties had been notified and heard before the transfer. The Advocate General admitted that no notices had been issued, and the request was merely submitted for case transfer.
he court observed that the order itself stated that the request was not permissible under the cited legal provision, yet the request was approved despite the petitioner not insisting on it.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan stressed that a judge is accountable to the public and that this proceeding was meant to create awareness, not to embarrass the High Court. He reiterated that judicial accountability lies with the people, not any other entity.
He further explained that contempt cases are heard by the judge whose order has been violated, questioning whether the same bench that did not issue the order could hear a contempt case regarding its violation.
Mishal Yousafzai informed the court that she had attended six to seven contempt case hearings, where a different stance was taken each time. She also claimed that PTI’s legal team stood by her, acting under instructions from the PTI founder.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan affirmed that the dignity of the court was his utmost priority.
Mishal Yousafzai further revealed that she was pressured outside the court to withdraw the contempt case, being told that the case would yield no results and that she was wasting her efforts.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan clarified that today’s proceedings focused solely on case transfer, and he intended to issue a final judgment, stating that there was no legal provision for such a case transfer. He reiterated that had a High Court judge not carried out the transfer, it would have constituted criminal contempt of court.
He emphasized that all parties were called to assist the court, as he did not have the luxury to conduct detailed research himself.
Addressing the advocate general, the court assured that it did not intend to put him in a difficult position, but rather required satisfactory responses to legal queries.
Former Advocate General Jahangir Jadoon also took the podium, questioning whether the Advocate General’s office could legally defend the deputy registrar, given that the advocate general represents the federal government, not individuals. He argued that the Prosecutor General’s Office should have represented the deputy registrar instead.
Advocate General Ayaz Shaukat responded with appreciation, stating that Jadoon’s argument had relieved him of responsibility and that he would prefer to be completely excluded from the matter.
The court then posed a broader question about the state’s position in these cases, asking whether the formation of a larger bench was legally valid and whether its proceedings adhered to legal standards. The court stated that the legality of the larger bench proceedings would be evaluated in today’s hearing.
Advocate Shoaib Shaheen pointed out orders regarding the larger bench’s formation, citing that the office objections had been removed. However, the court noted that no justification for removing objections was provided.
Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan reiterated that the proceedings served as an educational process for the public and were not merely about a political leader but about establishing legal principles.
The court directed the Deputy Registrar to present Islamabad High Court rules in the next hearing, particularly those that allow the Chief Justice to remove objections and order a case transfer.
The judge further instructed the Advocate General to maintain a consistent stance before the larger bench, cautioning against taking contradictory positions in different courts. The court adjourned the hearing until after Eid.
