On Monday, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) took a significant step by annulling the contempt of court notices that had previously been issued to the Prime Minister and members of the federal cabinet in connection with the high-profile Dr Aafia Siddiqui case. This decision effectively overturned an earlier directive handed down last year, bringing an end to the legal proceedings against the top government officials in this matter. The ruling was delivered by a larger, four-member bench led by Justice Arbab Tahir, who authored the detailed written judgment clarifying the court’s stance.
The judgment emphasized that the original order dated July 21, 2025, which had initiated the contempt proceedings, was rendered by a bench that was not properly constituted the court’s procedural rules. The larger bench pointed out that the single-judge bench, led by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, had taken up the case despite it not being included in the official cause list for that day. Moreover, the judge’s name was absent from the duty roster, which raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the proceedings. Consequently, the IHC declared the earlier order null and void, underscoring the importance of adhering to established judicial protocols.
It is worth noting that the original contempt notices had been issued during hearings related to Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist who has been imprisoned in the United States since 2010. Dr Siddiqui was convicted by a New York federal court on charges including attempted murder and assault, stemming from an incident during an interrogation by US authorities in Ghazni, Afghanistan, in 2008. Despite her denial of the allegations, she was sentenced to 86 years in prison following her trial. The case has remained a sensitive and politically charged issue in Pakistan, with many viewing her incarceration as unjust.
The larger bench’s ruling also clarified the authority of the IHC chief justice as the master of the roster, reaffirming that only the chief justice has the exclusive power to constitute benches and assign cases. This means that no individual judge or bench can independently assume jurisdiction, initiate proceedings, or retain cases without the chief justice’s approval, particularly under Article 202 of the Constitution and the High Court Rules. The judgment stressed that any concerns regarding the formation of benches or the allocation of cases should be addressed through proper administrative channels rather than unilateral judicial action.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the chief justice’s prerogative to consolidate similar petitions to prevent contradictory rulings and to transfer cases between benches at any stage to enhance judicial efficiency. Importantly, the chief justice is not required to seek the consent of the benches involved before making such transfers. This provision aims to streamline the judicial process and maintain coherence in the court’s decisions.
In summary, the Islamabad High Court’s decision to withdraw the contempt notices against the Prime Minister and federal cabinet members not only resolves a contentious legal dispute but also reinforces the procedural safeguards that govern the judiciary’s functioning. By emphasizing the role of the chief justice in bench constitution and case management, the ruling seeks to uphold the integrity and orderly conduct of judicial proceedings in Pakistan’s highest courts.
