Earlier, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan was also hearing a contempt of court case against the superintendent of Adiala Jail for not allowing incarcerated former prime minister Imran Khan meet his family members and party leaders despite court orders
However, the case was transferred to a three-member larger benchled by IHC Acting Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogarthat disposed of the cases with instructions.
However, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan initiated a separate suo motu contempt proceeding against the IHC deputy registrar and others for transferring a case without his permission.
During, hearing of the case on Friday, Justice Khan was told that a division bench of the IHC had issued an order to suspend the contempt proceedings initiated by him.
“You are presenting the division bench’s order, which effectively restrains this court from proceeding with the contempt of court case. This is a blatant overreach of authority by the division bench,” he said.
According to Justice Khan, it is settled law that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against an interim order by a single judge and the division bench’s order undermined the authority of a senior fellow judge.
“If I accept this overreach, why would litigants continue to have faith in my court? Why would anyone comply with orders issued by my court? Because the moment I issue a show-cause notice for contempt, a division bench can simply suspend it?” he added.
He added: “Let me make one thing clear. I proceeded to write the order even if I had to sit alone in this courtroom and pretend as though people were present.”
During the hearing, Justice Khan asked the additional and deputy judicial registrars as to why they concealed the fact that an intra-court appeal had been filed. He said a division bench heard the appeal and concluded that he was wrong and that he did not even know the law.
“Are you making a mockery of the IHC? I reassured you that there would be no action taken against you and yet you still went ahead and filed the intra-court appeal or were you coerced into doing so?” he asked.
He said when the case was brought before the division bench, he was not allowed to present his stance. He said a one-sided order was passed and only after it was passed was the court informed that proceedings had been halted.