In a written verdict, issued by a four-member bench hearing intra-court appeal against an earlier IHC order directing the issuance of contempt of court notices to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the federal cabinet, the court observed that a high court bench does not come into juridical existence merely by virtue of the physical presence or status of its judges.
“[A bench is formed] only upon constitution and allocation of work through a roster duly approved by the chief justice under Article 202 of the Constitution and the applicable high court rules.
The order said no judge or bench may self-assign, initiate, retain, transfer, or otherwise assume jurisdiction over a matter except through the institutional mechanism controlled by the chief justice. Any attempt to do so amounts to an impermissible assumption of jurisdiction.
The judgment held that the chief justice may consolidate identical or substantially similar petitions at any stage to ensure coherence, avoid conflicting judgments and promote judicial efficiency, and is under no legal obligation to obtain consent from any bench previously hearing the matter.
On July 21, 2025, contempt proceedings were initiated against Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and cabinet members for allegedly disregarding court directions to provide reasons for not assisting a US court hearing the case of incarcerated neuroscientist Dr Aafia Siddiqui.
In a three-page order authored by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, the court had directed the initiation of contempt proceedings, making all members of the federal government respondents and seeking their replies within two weeks.
Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan had noted that the government had been given time to respond but failed to do so, warning that inaction would result in contempt proceedings.
The federal government had earlier approached the Supreme Court on July 15, 2025, seeking to overturn a May 16, 2025 IHC order that allowed amendments to a previously settled petition concerning Dr Aafia Siddiqui nearly a decade after its filing.
Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan, who was scheduled to proceed on summer vacation from July 21, had earlier announced he would hear the case on that date. However, the matter was not listed before his bench in the official cause list.
He nevertheless heard the case and later issued the contempt order, which also contained sharp criticism of IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and other judicial developments following the 26th Amendment.
The government later an intra-court appeal against the order heard by a four-member larger bench headed by Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir.
The bench ruled that the July 21, 2025 contempt order was issued by a bench that “never came into lawful existence under the approved roster” and was therefore without jurisdiction.
As a consequence, the court recalled the July 21 order in Writ Petition No. 3139 of 2015 (Dr Fowzia Siddiqui v Federation of Pakistan, etc), declaring that the bench which issued the order was not lawfully constituted.