Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) initiated contempt proceedings on Wednesday after discovering that a case under his jurisdiction — concerning ex-premier Imran Khan’s right to meet with his lawyer — had been transferred to a larger bench without his knowledge or consent.
The IHC administration had yesterday constituted a three-member larger bench — headed by newly appointed Acting Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar — to hear all 26 petitions related to the visitation rights and jail conditions of Imran.
As the orders in one such petition were not followed, Imran’s lawyer Mashal Yousufzai sought contempt proceedings against Adiala Jail Superintendent Abdul Ghafoor Anjum. The case was heard last week by Justice Ishaq.
However, the cause list for the case presided by Justice Ishaq — set to resume on March 21 — was cancelled by the IHC registrar’s office due to the larger bench’s formation, it emerged during a hearing today.
Yousufzai, her counsel Advocate Shoaib Shaheen and Imran’s spokesperson Niazullah Khan Niazi appeared before the court.
In a separate development, the petitions clubbed together were fixed for hearing before the larger bench for tomorrow.
The bench, led by Justice Dogar and including Justices Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Muhammad Azam Khan, will hear the pleas, which include Yousufzai’s contempt case.
All 26 petitions — including contempt of court applications against Anjum — were transferred to the larger bench on the Adiala Jail official’s request, which cited logistical challenges in appearing before multiple benches.
In one such petition filed by Yousafzai, Justice Ishaq had directed the authorities to produce the PTI founder before the court. However, citing security concerns, the directive was not complied with.
The judge later assigned court clerk Sakina Bangash to visit the jail and verify whether Imran had been denied access to his legal counsel. Bangash, however, was unable to meet the ex-PM, leaving the key questions unanswered. This issue was also to be addressed by the larger bench.
The hearing
As the hearing began in the morning, Justice Ishaq summoned the court’s Deputy Registrar (judicial) Sultan Mehmood and the Islamabad advocate general at 11am to seek the reasons for the cause list’s cancellation.
“Are you involved in whatever has happened?” Justice Ishaq asked the advocate general. When Mehmood arrived, the judge asked him, “On whose directives did you cancel the cause list?”
The deputy registrar replied, “We were issued instructions by the [IHC] chief justice’s office, which said that a larger bench has been formed so you may cancel this case’s cause list.”
The judge then asked him under which law was the “miscellaneous application for the case transfer” filed. “Does the state support transferring a case without the [presiding] judge’s will?” he further asked.
“Instead of doing this, you could have planted explosives in my courtroom’s foundations and blown it up,” Justice Ishaq remarked, expressing his displeasure.
Noting a failure to “settle basic questions”, the judge lamented how the country would progress if the courts were deliberating upon the same fundamentals “every 10 years”.
“There is no greater folly than the economy making progress without implementation of the law,” he observed.
Justice Ishaq went on to stress that it was not a matter of his “personality or authority but of the high court’s respect”. “Would the public’s belief in the justice system be maintained in this manner?” he asked rhetorically.
