- July 21 order passed by bench not “legally constituted”: IHC.
- Says case heard despite not being included in cause list.
- Larger bench says IHC chief justice holds roster authority.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday withdrew contempt of court notices issued to the prime minister and members of the federal cabinet in the Dr Aafia Siddiqui case, setting aside an earlier order issued last year.
A four-member larger bench headed by Justice Arbab Tahir issued the written judgment, declaring that the July 21, 2025, order passed by a bench that was not legally constituted.
The court ruled that the single-bench decision dated July 21, 2025, stood recalled, noting that the case was heard despite not being included in the cause list and that the judge’s name was not part of the duty roster.
The order in question was issued by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, who had issued contempt notices to the prime minister and the federal cabinet during the hearing on the case pertaining to incarcerated Dr Aafia Siddiqui.
Dr Aafia, a Pakistani neuroscientist, was indicted by a New York federal district court in 2008 on charges of attempted murder and assault, stemming from an incident during an interview with the US authorities in Ghazni, Afghanistan — charges that she denied.
After 18 months in detention, she was tried and convicted in early 2010 and sentenced to 86 years in prison. She has since been imprisoned in the US.
Meanwhile, in its judgment, the larger bench held that only the IHC chief justice, as master of the roster, has the authority to constitute benches, stressing that only a bench formed with the approval of the chief justice has jurisdiction to hear a matter.
According to the ruling, no judge or bench can assume jurisdiction on its own, initiate proceedings, retain, transfer or take up any case under Article 202 of the Constitution and the relevant High Court Rules.
Any objection, the court said, regarding the roster or constitution of a bench may be addressed through administrative procedure.
The judgment further stated that the chief justice was authoritised to combine similar petitions to avoid conflicting decisions, and may transfer a case to another bench at any stage to improve judicial work.
The chief justice is not bound to obtain the consent of a bench before transferring matters under consideration, it added.
