- Judgment authored by Justice Mandokhail stresses accountability lies solely with SJC under Article 209
- Rules Article 199(5) grants immunity to SC and high court judges in judicial, administrative functions
- Warns intra-judicial contempt could fuel conflicts, erode public trust in justice system
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that only the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) holds the authority to probe allegations of misconduct against judges of the apex and high courts, as Article 199(5) of the Constitution provides immunity to them for actions performed in their judicial and administrative capacities.
The landmark ruling came in a detailed judgment authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and released on Wednesday in connection with contempt proceedings against Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas.
A three-member bench had initiated contempt proceedings in January after Abbas allegedly failed to fix a case relating to the jurisdiction of regular benches. That case concerned whether regular benches could adjudicate the constitutionality of Article 191A of the Constitution, which created the Constitutional Bench following the 26th Amendment.
The judgment reaffirmed that judicial immunity is vital to preserving the independence of the judiciary, a constitutional command under Article 2A (Objectives Resolution). It stressed that no judge of the Supreme Court or a high court can issue writs, directions, or contempt proceedings against another judge of the same court.
“A judge of the superior court is not answerable to another judge of the same court,” the verdict stated, questioning how a judge could punish a fellow judge under Article 204(2) for contempt when constitutional protections explicitly prevent such action.
The order explained that while immunity shields judges in the exercise of their judicial and administrative functions, it does not absolve them from accountability. Misconduct cases, however, fall exclusively under Article 209 and can only be pursued by the SJC.
“Sub-article (7) of Article 209 bars any other forum from inquiring into misconduct against a judge of the Supreme Court or a high court. This is a substantive and salient feature of the Constitution,” the judgment emphasized.
The bench warned that allowing judges to issue contempt notices against each other would erode comity, fuel internal divisions, and ultimately weaken the justice system.
“If judges of the superior courts were permitted to initiate contempt proceedings against one another, it would lead to conflicts, grievances, and grudges. There would be anarchy and the justice system would crumble, undermining public trust,” it cautioned.
The controversy began when a two-member bench issued a contempt notice to Abbas, raising doubts within the judiciary itself. On January 27, Justices Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi withdrew the notice and referred the matter to Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi to determine whether a full court should decide on contempt against two Supreme Court committees — the regular committee under Section 2 of the SC Practice and Procedure Act, 2023, and the constitutional committee formed under Article 191A(4).
Section 2 of the 2023 Act requires a three-member committee, including the CJP, the next most senior judge, and one nominated by the CJP, to constitute benches for hearing all cases.
Later, on the same day, a six-judge bench — comprising Justices Mandokhail, Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Athar Minallah, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Shahid Waheed, and Musarrat Hilali — disposed of Abbas’s intra-court appeal. The larger bench observed that a smaller bench could not hold appellate judges in contempt without following due constitutional procedure.
In its concluding remarks, the Supreme Court underscored that the independence of the judiciary hinges on mutual respect and restraint within the superior courts, with disciplinary accountability reserved solely for the SJC under Article 209.
