ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has initiated contempt proceedings against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his entire cabinet for disregarding its order to provide reasons for not assisting a US court hearing the case of incarcerated neuroscientist Dr Aafia Siddiqui.
“As the government has not reverted with the reasons despite being directed to do so, it is in contempt, leaving me with no option but to issue a notice of contempt to the Federal Government.
“Office is directed to initiate a contempt petition accordingly, in which all the members of the Federal Government will be respondents. The replies of all the ministers, including the prime minister, shall be filed within two weeks from today,” said a three-page order authored by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan.
The judge noted that in his last order he had given the government time to revert with its decision, while cautioning the state law officer that inaction would result in contempt proceedings.
The federal government on July 15 approached the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the May 16, 2025, order of the IHC that allowed amendments to a previously settled petition concerning Dr Aafia Siddiqui – nearly a decade after its filing. The SC, however, has not yet listed the petition for hearing.
Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan was to go on summer vacation from Monday (July 21). However, he had announced at the last hearing that he would hear the case on July 21.
Interestingly, the IHC did not list the case for hearing before his bench. The judge, nevertheless, heard the case on Monday and later issued a blistering order, criticizing IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and the entire “demolition squad catapulted into” the IHC after the 26th amendment.
Justice Khan noted that the leave schedule was announced much earlier to the date on which he had ordered to list this case today, given its importance and the need for swift dispensation of justice
“On Thursday or perhaps Friday, I was informed through my PS [personal secretary] by the office that the cause list will not be issued unless the roster of the sitting judges for this week was amended with the leave of the chief justice.
“That seemed to me a trivial matter and I asked my PS to move an application accordingly. I was informed on Saturday that the application was duly moved but the file remained on the table of the Chief Justice, who did not find even 30 seconds to sign it.
“Whether that was by design or oversight, I cannot say for sure, but given the manner in which the roster of judges has been used as a tool for the desired outcome in specific cases, and given the government’s stiff opposition to do what is right and to stand by the daughter of the nation at the critical juncture of the motion before a US Court, I may be forgiven for thinking that it was the former.”
He said the government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against his earlier decision permitting amendments to the petition for continuation of this case but the SC did not take up the case.
“[So] the machinations of the executive appeared elsewhere, in the form of controlling the proceedings of this court through its roster.
“The legal historians would write that now, even if he wishes to by reason of imperatives of urgent justice, a judge is now not allowed to hold court by the high court establishment when he is on leave.”
He stated that the correct legal position is that the office cannot use the shoulder of the CJ in the exercise of administrative powers to obstruct judicial proceedings ordered by a judge.
He said the motivation of a judge to hold court on a day on which he is officially’ on leave would spell out whether the reason to hold court was any ulterior motive or the dispensation of justice.
“I trust that all right thinking men and women would agree with me that today my decision to hold court was solely and exclusively for the purposes of dispensation of justice.
He said gone were the days when a judge could pass an order even while playing golf or dining with his family, if the exigency so required. The ceremony of robes and a courtroom – or the menial triviality of a cause list as in this case were never the indispensable prerequisites for him to carry out judicial business.
“This is yet another instance of the reproachable use of the administrative power to shackle the exercise of independent judicial authority, with the likely motivation to pend (until my leave ends) the government’s response with reasons as to why it would not sign the amicus brief.
“However, the imperatives of justice shall not be defeated by such petty means. To the extent I can, I will exercise my judicial authority to the end of upholding the dignity of the High Court and the justice it dispenses,” he added. The bench will resume hearing the case on September 1.
