ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday deferred contempt proceedings against judges who had taken oath after defying its restraining order of Nov 3, 2007, till a decision on two intra-court appeals.

However, the appeals of two judges were later declared ‘un-maintainable’ by the court’s registrar.

Senior counsel Dr Abdul Basit told a five-judge special bench that Justice Hasnaat Ahmed Khan and Justice Syed Shabar Raza Rizvi of the Lahore High Court had challenged through intra-court appeals contempt notices issued to them by the apex court.

Representing the two LHC judges, Dr Basit contended that serving judges could only be removed under Article 209 of the Constitution (Supreme Judicial Council) and that the verdict of July 31 had been announced without hearing his clients.

He requested the court to first take up the reply of Justice (retd) Abdul Hameed Dogar to the contempt notice issued to him because he was the first to take oath under the PCO and then administer the same to other judges.

He also urged the court to decide the contempt case as early as possible, saying that a delay would lead to creation of a bad impression among the masses against judges.

The bench comprising Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, Justice Nasirul Mulk, Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja and Justice Ghulam Rabbani had taken up contempt notices issued against superior court judges for taking oath under the Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) of 2007.

It adjourned the matter without deciding the next date of hearing after consulting senior constitutional expert S.M. Zafar.

‘We consider it appropriate to hold our hands on the proceedings till the decision on the said appeals,’ the court said. It added that since the two petitions were adjourned, the connected matters were also adjourned.

During the proceedings, Dr Khalid Ranjha, representing former LHC chief justice Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, said it had come to his attention through media reports that pension of judges unseated as a consequence of the July 31 judgment had been stopped.

Justice Ramday asked the counsel to inform the court after confirming the reports. A few minutes later, Dr Ranjha informed the court that he was mistaken and his client was getting pension.

In the evening, the court office returned the appeals moved by the two LHC judges under Section 10(2-A) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, saying they were ‘not entertainable’ because the act had been repealed by the Contempt of Court Ordinance of 2003 which had been accorded permanence by incorporation of Article 270AA into the Constitution through the 17th Amendment.

The announcement cited a judgment reported as PLD 2007, SC 688.

The two judges had requested the apex court to set aside the notices, contending that the appellants were sitting judges and contempt proceedings could not be initiated against any judge of a superior court.

They said they were an integral part of the LHC and contempt proceedings against them would mean proceedings against the high court — something not allowed or contemplated by the Constitution.

They said a judge of a high court was never treated to be a person against whom contempt proceedings could be initiated. There was no instance in the world where such proceedings had been initiated against a sitting judge, they said.

They said the notices tended to erode the authority and prestige of the high court and were inconsistent with public interest and confidence in the judicial process.

The court also issued notice on a challenge by Justice (retd) Dogar against the return of his two petitions and fixed the matter for hearing in chamber on Thursday.

On Oct 28, the apex court had returned the petitions questioning the incumbency of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and seeking reversal of the July 31 judgment holding Justice (retd) Dogar’s incumbency as unconstitutional