Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 262548
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: The State vs Mr. Sultan Mehmood, Deputy Registrar, IHC, & others
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 262548. In this matter between The State and Mr. Sultan Mehmood, Deputy Registrar, IHC, & others, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas DECISION DATE: 03-DEC-2025 CASE NO: Criminal Original-50-2025 CITATION: 2025 IHC 262548 PARTIES: The State VS Mr. Sultan Mehmood, Deputy Registrar, IHC, & others LAW / SECTION: under Section 6 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 || section 3 of the Ordinance || under Section 7 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 || SUBJECT: Writ, REMARKS: Suo Moto Case (Crl Org) in Crl Org 09/2025 ============================================================ ORDER SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Suo Moto Case/Criminal Original No.50 of 2025 The State Versus Sultan Mehmood, Deputy Registrar, IHC and others S. No. of order/ proceedings Date of order/ proceedings Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where necessary. 07.10.2025. Nemo for the petitioner/State. Sultan Mehmood, Deputy Registrar (Judl) in person.
INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.- The case at hand is unique both in its form and in its inception. In order to arrive at a just and judicious determination, it is apposite to perambulate through the essential facts and events which culminated in the cataclysmic origination of the instant contempt proceedings. This Court is conscious that contempt jurisdiction, being exceptional, must be exercised strictly within the confines of law. Backdrop of the proceedings: 2. A contempt petition titled “Mishal Azam vs. Ghafoor Anjum, etc”, bearing Criminal Original No. 90 of 2025, was being heard by Bench-V of this Court. During pendency of the proceedings, a miscellaneous application was filed seeking clubbing of all similar petitions for hearing by a larger bench. The Hon’ble Chief Justice, on principle of propriety, passed a judicial order for clubbing and listing all such matters before a larger bench. 3. Upon being informed of this transfer, Bench V expressed dissatisfaction and conflated the transfer order issued under judicial prescription with its administrative compliance by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). Vide order dated 19.03.2025, the Bench directed the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the Deputy Registrar, observing prima facie criminal contempt under Section 6 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The Bench
2 Suo Moto Case/Crl. Org. No.50 of 2025
further directed the office to assign a number to the matter and list it on its own roster. For ease of reference, order dated 19.03.2025 is reproduced as under: - “(a) This Court was hearing criminal original petition no. 9 of 2025, titled Mishal Azam vs Gafoor Anjum etc. (the “Contempt Petition”), in which the Court had appointed a local commission, whose report was to be laid before the Court today by virtue of the order passed on the preceding date; (b) The original cause list received by this Court included the Contempt Petition at serial no. 2 in the notice cases. This morning, an amended cause list was placed before this Court recording that the Contempt Petition had been “Cancelled by Order”, without specifying as to who passed the order and how such order came to be passed; (c) The diversion of the Contempt Petition without my consent constitutes, prima facie, criminal contempt under section 6 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, for diverting the course of justice from the Judge already seized of the matter to another Judge(s); (d) The diversion of a sub-judice matter from a Judge of the High Court without his consent can open the doors to favouritism and corruption, that will bring the administration of law into disrespect, and therefore needs to be addressed sternly and properly in order to prevent any such incidents recurring in the future; (e) The diversion of the Contempt Petition has, prima facie, in terms of section 3 of the Ordinance, tended to bring the authority of this Court and the administration of law into disrespect, and has interfered with and interrupted the due course of judicial proceedings already underway before this Court; (f) The cognizance of criminal contempt can be taken suo motu by a Judge under section 7 of the Ordinance; and (g) The integrity, authority, respect, and independence of this Court compels that these
3 Suo Moto Case/Crl. Org. No.50 of 2025
proceedings be initiated, regardless of their eventual outcome. Therefore, under section 7 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, the Court directs the office to assign a number to this matter and to list it on my roster. In order to gather further information as to how this state of affairs came about, the Court requires the attendance of the learned Advocate General, Islamabad, and of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), at 11:00 am today. 11:30 am M/s Shoaib Shaheen and Niaz Ullah Khan Niazi, advocates for the petitioner in crl.org. 9 of 2025. Mr Ayyaz Shoukat, Advocate General, Islamabad. Mr Abdul Rehman and Mr Umar, State Counsels. Mr. Sultan Mehmood, Deputy Registrar, IHC.
The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) stated that his office received intimation from the office of the Acting Chief Justice that, since a Larger Bench was constituted to hear the Contempt Petition along with other cases concerning Imran Khan, therefore, the case had to be cancelled from the cause list of this Court. He is directed to file a memorandum, documenting the sequence of all events that led to the order for transfer of the Contempt Petition from this Court to the Larger Bench, including copies of the petition/application filed for such transfer, and the orders passed thereon resulting in such transfer. He will also identify the legal provisions, including any in the Rules of the High Court, authorizing the office of the Chief Justice or a Larger Bench to transfer a case already sub judice before another Judge from his Court without his consent, especially contempt petitions, which are a matter between such Court and the contemnor under settled law. 2. The learned Advocate General is asked to submit a concise brief as to whether the State supports the aforesaid transfer of the Contempt Petition, and whether the State will continue to plead before the Larger Bench without contesting the withdrawal of the Contempt Petition sans the consent of this Court.
4 Suo Moto Case/Crl. Org. No.50 of 2025
3. Based on the responses tomorrow, this Court will consider how best to move forward. 4. Relist on 20.03.2025 at 10:30 am. If the office is prevented by any supervening order from listing this suo motu contempt case in my cause list, this Court will call the case on its own at 10:30 am.” 4. Multiple hearings have been conducted in the instant contempt petition, during which replies, reports, and assistance of amici curiae have been placed on record. Consequently, a considerable body of jurisprudential and legal material has been collected and duly docketed in the file. During the course of proceedings, the Additional Registrar and Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court were repeatedly made to stand on each date of hearing. Constitutional and Institutional Context: 5. It is axiomatic that a High Court, under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”) exercises both judicial and administrative powers. The judicial powers emanate from the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution or by law, as stipulated in Article 175 of the Constitution, which unequivocally provides that “no Court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law.” This provision firmly anchors the High Court’s judicial authority within the bounds of express constitutional and statutory conferral. 6. Concomitantly, the Judges of the High Court exercise administrative control over the internal functioning of the Court, in accordance with the distribution of work assigned by the Hon’ble Chief Justice from time to time. This dual character judicial on one hand and administrative on the other operates in a complementary
5 Suo Moto Case/Crl. Org. No.50 of 2025
but distinct manner, governed by well-established constitutional conventions and institutional mechanisms. 7. However, it is neither desirable nor consonant with established judicial practice that officers of the Court be summoned in open Court and subjected to public censure in matters relating to internal administration or the implementation of judicial orders. Such a course is alien to the decorum and discipline of judicial proceedings and risks blurring the clear demarcation between judicial adjudication and administrative oversight. The consistent and prudent course adopted by the superior judiciary has been to bring any illegality, irregularity, or impropriety on the part of Court employees to the notice of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, through a confidential administrative note, accompanied by appropriate recommendations for disciplinary action. This institutional mechanism is designed to preserve the dignity of judicial proceedings, maintain internal administrative discipline, and ensure that employees are dealt with through proper administrative channels. Treating such employees as accused in open Court is neither warranted by law nor procedurally sanctioned, and stands contrary to both constitutional structure and long-settled judicial practice. Case Institution and Procedural Anomalies: 8. The present proceedings have been initiated under Section 7 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. Before referring to the contents of the statutory provision, it is imperative to revisit the general process governing the institution of cases before this Court. 9. In the ordinary course of events, whether routine or extraordinary, all judicial filings are made through the official filing branch of the Court. A petitioner must appear in person for biometric verification and submit the case file at the filing counter. Upon submission, the file is allotted a computerized institution
6 Suo Moto Case/Crl. Org. No.50 of 2025
number through the Court’s automated software system. The case file is then scrutinized to ensure procedural and legal requirements compliance. A regular case number is assigned if the file passes this stage without objections. Thereafter, cases for the requested dates are compiled through an exact automated mechanism, generating a marking list. This list is then placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to mark and allocate the matter to an appropriate Bench. The process is structured, digitized, and governed by the Court’s filing protocols to ensure transparency, uniformity, and accountability. Statutory Framework of Contempt Jurisdiction: 10. It is noteworthy that while Bench V initiated the proceedings against the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) under the rubric of criminal contempt in terms of Section 7 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, the very definition of “criminal contempt” as contained in the Ordinance warrants scrutiny. The nature and scope of such proceedings must be examined in the light of the statutory language and the procedural safeguards envisaged therein. The very definition of criminal contempt, as in the Act, says:- “A criminal contempt shall be deemed to have been committed if a person — (a) Attempts to influence a witness, or proposed witness, either by intimidation or improper inducement, not to give evidence, or not to tell the truth in any legal proceedings; (b) Offers an improper inducement or attempts to intimidate a Judge, in order to secure a favorable verdict in any legal proceedings; (c) Commits any other act with intent to divert the course of justice. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall prejudice any other criminal proceedings, which may be initiated against any such person as it mentioned therein. (Section 6)”
7 Suo Moto Case/Crl. Org. No.50 of 2025
11. None of the statutory ingredients required to attract proceedings under Section 7 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, stands fulfilled in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There was no witness or trial in play, no allegation of inducement has been levelled, and the notion of diversion of the course of justice is inapplicable to an officer of the Court performing administrative functions. Judicial Precedents and Interpretative Guidance: 12. It is instructive to refer to judicial pronouncements, wherein contempt proceedings were initiated against Court employees i.e. PLD 2002 SC 1033 and Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2024 of this Court. These authoritative decisions elucidate the correct legal approach and statutory discipline required in such circumstances. Relevant paragraphs from the said judgments are reproduced below for ready reference and guidance:- “In case, if any Hon’ble Judge of this Court did feel that either of the appellants was in dereliction of duty, appropriate course was to refer the matter to the Administration Committee of this Court or to the Chief Justice for inquiring into the same. The initiation of contempt proceedings, where there was no administrative or judicial order, cannot form basis for proceeding against the appellants, in holding so, we are fortified by the decision of the Larger Bench of Lahore High Court in case reported as Mujibur Rehman Shami and another Vs. A Judge of the High Court, Lahore (PLD 1973 Lahore 778). In the referred decision, Larger Bench of Lahore High Court held that judges of superior courts inter se possess co-ordinate jurisdiction and if in the matter of writs etc. one High Court Judge cannot issue a writ to another Judge of the same Court, no process for contempt of court can lie for taking against the Judge disobeying the order of another Judge, and if this can be true qua an alleged contempt of this type, the position should be the same qua contempts of other types. It was also observed as follows:
8 Suo Moto Case/Crl. Org. No.50 of 2025
“Be that as it may, the broad proposition still remains that caution and circumspection should be had in view in launching contempt proceedings and the machinery of the Court cannot be set in motion for purpose of taking proceedings for one's feelings of private grudge and malice as is the case here. The conduct of a petitioner who moves for contempt is always a relevant factor for the purpose of determining whether the purpose of application for contempt is a genuine one and the application itself is given to vindicate the cause of jeopardized justice or whether it is given for an ulterior purpose and purports to ventilate a fancied grievance sought to be paraded merely for the purpose of securing the harassment of the other party. The conduct of the petitioners in the instant case speaks volumes against them, not only as regards the alleged theft of the official secret documents but also otherwise. The Court is not bound to issue rule nisi in cases of such type where the conduct of a person who wants the authority of law to be established is itself against law and ethics.” It was also alluded that where disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the employees, the more appropriate way is to proceed with initiation of such and not the contempt proceedings. In case, such like actions are taken, where the judges issue contempt notice to the establishment of High Court where there is no violation of the order, then that will hamper the free and smooth functioning of the institution. There can be dereliction in duty by an employee and in the said case, appropriate forum is to make a complaint in writing to the competent authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. In re: “Muhammad Sadiq Leghari Registrar Sindh High Court (PLD 2022 SC 1033)” contempt notice was issued to Registrar of High Court of Sindh and the Larger Bench of Supreme Court considered the matter and it was observed as follows:- “We may observe here at the very outset that a distinction has to be made between a
9 Suo Moto Case/Crl. Org. No.50 of 2025
case of contempt of Court based on defiance or violation of a judicial order in the nature of temporary injunction by a party whereby such party was restrained from acting in a particular manner but in spite of service of notice or having come to know of the passing of such order, acts in a manner to alter the position to his advantage so as to frustrate the temporary injunction and an act of mere non- submission of a report called for by the Court by an Officer of Court. In the former case, the Court would take strict view and mere act of defiance of the judicial order would by itself justify raising of presumption that the doer of the act was guilty of contempt of Court unless he proves otherwise whereas in the latter case, it has to be determined on application of judicial mind as to whether the appellant deliberately did not submit the report on account of having personal interest in any of the parties to cause damage to the other party in the case in which the report was called or had any personal interest which, if proved or established would make the act of non- submission of the report mala fide. In the absence of any of these factors and element of contumacy, his conduct could not be held to have suffered from mala fides or contempt of Court. It has been held in the case of Behawal v. The State PLD 1962 SC 476 that mere non- compliance of an order the absence of contumacy, would not amount to contempt of Court.” 13. With the element of criminal contempt being out of consideration, it may be surmised that Bench-V, while directing initiation of contempt proceedings, might have perceived the act of administrative compliance with the transfer order as an averment tending to cast scandal upon the Bench. Be that as it may, the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, lays down a mandatory procedural framework for the suo motu initiation of contempt
10 Suo Moto Case/Crl. Org. No.50 of 2025
proceedings, which cannot be circumvented or short-circuited, even by the Bench itself. Registrar’s Note – Distinction between Judicial Decision and Administrative Compliance: 14. The gaucherie that unfolded after the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by Bench V and which ultimately culminated in the numbering of the present matter as a contempt petition originated at its very inception from a note put up by the Office of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) for compliance with the said order. This note was subsequently endorsed by the Registrar, who directed that the Court’s order be implemented by registering and assigning a contempt petition number for proceedings against the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). Any ambiguity arising from the Registrar’s endorsement warrants an unequivocal exposition of the legal position. The Office of the Registrar is not the Court; it is a supplementary and subordinate administrative organ that facilitates the execution of judicial orders. The Registrar does not exercise judicial powers and cannot clothe an act with judicial character by issuing an administrative direction. This demarcation is deeply embedded in the constitutional structure of superior Courts, which separates judicial adjudication from administrative compliance. 15. When a Bench passes a judicial order, the Registrar has no authority to issue a subsequent judicial order. His role is confined to issuing administrative directions or instructions that effectuate the implementation of the Court’s order. The statutory framework governing contempt proceedings, particularly in suo motu situations, is explicit: The Hon’ble Chief Justice must make a decision, either by taking cognizance personally or by entrusting the matter to another Bench. No directory note or administrative instruction issued by the Registrar can be equated, in form or substance, with a judicial decision of the Hon’ble Chief Justice. To hold otherwise would amount to vesting a subordinate
11 Suo Moto Case/Crl. Org. No.50 of 2025
administrative office with jurisdictional powers, which the law neither contemplates nor permits. The Hon’ble Chief Justice’s power to allocate and assign judicial business, recognized in numerous precedents [(PLD 2012 SC 681), (2022 SCMR 1502) and State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1)], is exclusive and non-delegable, except where expressly provided by law. 16. Accordingly, the Registrar’s direction to number and register the petition must be regarded as mechanical compliance with the Bench’s order, a ministerial act, not a judicial determination. Given the limited administrative role of the Registrar’s Office, this action does not amount to the fulfilment of the statutory prerequisites mandated for suo motu contempt initiation. The jurisdictional step contemplated by law, namely, a decision of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, remains absent, thereby vitiating the initiation of proceedings ab initio. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBSERVE STATUTORY PROCEDURE: 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has recently pronounced in Crl. ICA No. 01/2025 and Crl. M.A 135/2025, titled Nazar Abbas vs The State that:- “A Judge(s) or a Bench(es) cannot direct the office or either of the Committee to fix a particular case before itself, which is not within its jurisdiction or as per the roster is not fixed before the said bench nor can withdraw any matter which is already pending before another bench. Only the bench which is seized with the matter or has partly heard it, can delist it. Judges are bound by their Oath, the Code of Conduct of the Judges, the law and the rules. Strict adherence whereof is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and smooth functioning of the Court. If every Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court starts picking and choosing cases for disposal by him, without following the practice and procedure in vogue, of their respective Courts, the discipline in the Court will be damaged, which will erode the public trust
12 Suo Moto Case/Crl. Org. No.50 of 2025
and the ultimate sufferer will be the public at large.” 18. The command of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on this issue is categorical and unambiguous, leaving no room to wander in search of legitimacy or to resort to curative interpretations. When a Bench directs that a case be marked to itself, it steps outside the jurisdictional framework laid down by the Constitution, the law, and the High Court Rules. Such an act constitutes a jurisdictional transgression, not a mere procedural irregularity. 19. Consequently, all hearings conducted after the first hearing stand on the same defective foundation, suffering from inherent nullity. These proceedings are hit by the doctrine of “fruits of the poisonous tree”, a legal metaphor conveying that if the root is unlawful, all that springs from it is equally tainted and invalid. This doctrine, though originating in common law and constitutional jurisprudence, has found recognition in our own legal tradition emphasizing that jurisdictional defects are incurable, and any proceedings emanating from such defects are void ab initio. 20. The principles of law governing this subject are settled beyond cavil. Where the form and substance of proceedings are tainted with illegality at their very inception, there arises no occasion to traverse the merits. The Latin maxim quod ab initio non valet, postea neque valet, that which is void from the beginning remains void thereafter, aptly governs the present case. The superior judiciary has repeatedly affirmed this principle, underscoring that jurisdictional defects strike at the root of proceedings and render every subsequent action legally unsustainable. 21. The initiation of these contempt proceedings, being void ab initio, vitiates all subsequent actions emanating therefrom.
13 Suo Moto Case/Crl. Org. No.50 of 2025
Accordingly, all directions, orders, and proceedings passed in pursuance thereof are hereby recalled. The contempt petition stands dismissed.
(INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
Announced in open Court on 03.12.2025.
JUDGE
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.
R.Anjam.