The Supreme Court has clarified in a detailed judgment that a judge cannot issue an order against another judge of the same court, emphasising that only the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) has the authority to take action against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The ruling came in the intra-court appeal of a former deputy registrar in a contempt of court case.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel authored the detailed judgment, holding that contempt notices issued to members of the Practice and Procedure as well as Constitutional Bench Committees could not be sustained.
The decision addressed a key question: whether contempt of court proceedings are possible against judges who are part of Constitutional or Regular Committees.
Judges immune under Article 199
The court noted that under Article 199 of the Constitution, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy immunity in administrative matters. Judges are protected from internal and external interference, meaning one judge cannot initiate writs or other legal actions against another judge of the same court.
Referring to the Muhammad Ikram Chaudhry case, the court reaffirmed that action against judges is not possible outside the constitutional framework.
Judiciary as guardian of rule of law
The judgment described the judiciary as a “main pillar” of democracy and guardian of the rule of law. It concluded that a judge of the Supreme Court or High Court is not accountable to another judge of the same court.
“When a judge of the Supreme Court cannot issue a writ against his fellow judge, he also cannot take contempt of court action,” the decision read. It reiterated that Article 209 prohibits proceedings against a judge at any forum other than the Supreme Judicial Council.
Case background
The ruling stemmed from an intra-court appeal filed by a former deputy registrar. The registrar had challenged contempt proceedings initiated by a bench led by Justice Mansoor for failing to fix a case despite court orders.
In the appeal, a six-member bench of the Supreme Court terminated the contempt proceedings. The detailed judgment released on Tuesday confirms that stance, placing the matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council.
