ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that an allegation of misconduct against a judge of the Supreme Court or a high court can only be inquired into and dealt with under Article 209 of the Constitution by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
A six-member larger bench headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail announced a detailed judgement on Wednesday in the Intra Court Appeal (ICA) of Additional Registrar (Judicial) Nazar Abbas. Other members of the bench were Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Athar Minallah, Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Shahid Waheed and Justice Musarat Hilali.
On January 27, 2025, the court had disposed of as withdrawn the ICA against the show cause notice issued to the additional registrar for contempt of court in a bench’s power case.
On Wednesday, the court issued an 11-page detailed judgement authored by Justice Mandokhail, holding that sub-Article (7) of Article 209 of the Constitution bars any other forum from inquiring into matters of misconduct against a judge of the Supreme Court or of a high court.
The court held that sub-Article (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution grants immunity to superior court judges for acts performed within their judicial and administrative capacity.
“The analogy for providing immunity is to prevent a judge of a court from misusing jurisdiction and authority by judging and controlling a fellow judge of the same court,” the judgement stated, adding that it protects the judge against any interference from outside or within the institution. The court ruled that permitting a superior court judge to initiate contempt proceedings against his fellow judge(s) would militate against the necessity of maintaining a high degree of comity amongst them.
The detailed judgement noted that the judiciary, being a central pillar of the democratic state, is the guardian of the rule of law.
“Under such circumstances, relying upon the principle provided by sub-Article (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution, the intention of the legislature is evident that they never intended to permit a judge of a court to take any action against a judge of the same court,” the judgement stated.
Thus, the court declared that no action for contempt of court could lie against judges of the Supreme Court and of high courts by their fellow judges, respectively.
