The Supreme Court (SC) has heroes and only the Supreme Judicial Committee (SJC) can investigate allegations of misconduct against Supreme Court judges and High Court judges.
The observation was conducted by a detailed verdict written by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail published on Tuesday, with one copy dawn.comin with Contempt program Oppose other Register (Judgment) Nazar Abbas.
Three Supreme Court judges filed a contempt lawsuit against senior staff in January for not resolving cases regarding formal bench jurisdiction. The case is in conjunction with the regular judge of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of Article 191a of the Constitution (the Constitutional Judge of the Supreme Court), which established the constitutional basis after the 26th Amendment.
The detailed judgment issued today says that the Constitutional Position of Article 199 of the Constitution, Chapter (5), grants immunity to the judges of the SC and the High Court to require them to enforce their actions within their judicial and administrative capacities.
“Constitutional immunity to the judges of the High Court is to ensure the independence of the judiciary, which is the command of Article 2A (the goal that forms part of the provisions of entities). No child in writing can take any action against another judge of the same court.”
The judgment further states: “There is a good solution, and the judges of the Supreme Court or the High Court are not responsible to the judges of the same court. If a judge of the High Court cannot issue an order to another judge of the same court, the court, the court, the court, how to give instructions to the court or litigation or resort to the court action and the court action and the court action and the court action and the court action, is it a lawsuit against him?
The detailed order observed that superior judiciary is often protected by judicial immunity, its judicial work and administrative functions related to the affairs of their respective courts.
However, it added that if this protection does not protect them from the consequences of misconduct, it is absolutely a matter of judicial administration or discipline.
It said that allegations of misconduct against superior judges can only be handled under Article 209 of the Constitution (Supreme Judicial Committee).
The order states: “No other forum on Article 209(7) of Article 209 of the Constitution can ask for misconduct against a Supreme Court judge or a High Court judge. This is a substantive provision and a distinctive feature of the Constitution.”
The order says the law’s “intention” is “obvious” that it never intends to allow a court judge to take any action against a judge in the same court. It added: “Therefore, there is no lawsuit against the courts that can be directed against the Supreme Court and the High Court judges, respectively.”
It said that the superior judiciary has the same status and power within its hierarchy, and no one is superior or inferior to objecting or punishing the other direction.
The order states that the superior judiciary allows mutual opposition to each other regarding litigation, which will “oppose the need to maintain a high level of investigation among them.”
It further explained: “The intimate relationship between the superior judiciary is crucial to the smooth operation of the court. The judges are conflicts and dissatisfaction with their colleagues.
The order said that if the two benches could avoid “the current uncalled event”, it could avoid contempt for it if it was associated with members of the two committees.
“It is surprisingly starting from the blue, and it is decided to initiate the proceedings against members of both committees under Article 204 of the Constitution. This cannot be underestimated when our brother judge declares the proceedings issued to members of the committee. The appellant was withdrawn… nothing can keep the regular chair going.
“Even if not, first, the above order cannot be implemented, and no directives are given to any one of the regular judges to the committee; secondly, the members of both committees have no right to resolve the petition. Constitutionally transferred and pending before the Constitutional Terminal, the order to be approved for regular fixation before that time.
In view of the above, the order said that the proceedings against both committee members were deemed unsustainable and were therefore revoked.
Justice Said Mansol Ali Shah and Justice Akiel Ahmed Abasi withdraw A notice of contempt against Abbas on January 27 and forwarded the matter to Pakistan Chief Justice Yahya Afridi to consider whether a full court is needed to decide whether the two committees of the monkey need to be filed. SC Practice and Procedure Act, and a Constitutional Committee established under Article 2 of the SC Practice and Procedure Act, and under Article 191(a)(4) of the Constitution.
Section 2 of the 2023 Act involves the Constitution of Judges and states that a judge composed of three judges’ committees will listen and handle every reason, occurrence or matter before the SC, consisting of the CJP, consisting of the CJP, consisting of the next senior SC judge and the SC judge nominated by the CJP.
On the same date, six members were composed of Justice Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Athar Minallah, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Shahid Waheed and Musrrat Hilali. Court appeal The court is requested to revoke the temp-de-litigation lawsuit initiated by the two benches. In the judgment of the two judges, the instructions presented in the judgment made members of the six benches wonder how the smaller judges would make the judges on the appeal bench contempt and not even follow the court’s lawsuit.
