The recent development regarding the IHC contempt notices in the Dr Aafia Siddiqui case has drawn significant public and legal attention. On Monday, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) withdrew contempt of court notices previously issued to the prime minister and members of the federal cabinet, setting aside an earlier order passed in July 2025.
A four-member larger bench headed by Justice Arbab Tahir issued the written judgment. The court declared that the July 21, 2025 order had been issued by a bench that was not legally constituted. As a result, the earlier proceedings, including the IHC contempt notices, were recalled and nullified.
Background of the Case
The controversy began when Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan issued contempt notices to the prime minister and federal cabinet during proceedings related to Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s case. The matter had generated widespread debate, given the political sensitivity surrounding Dr Aafia’s imprisonment in the United States.
Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist, was indicted in 2008 by a New York federal district court on charges of attempted murder and assault linked to an incident in Ghazni, Afghanistan. She denied the charges but was later convicted in 2010 and sentenced to 86 years in prison. Since then, her case has remained a deeply emotional and political issue in Pakistan.
The issuance of the IHC contempt notices against top government officials further intensified the discussion, raising questions about judicial authority and constitutional procedure.
Why the Notices Were Withdrawn
In its detailed judgment, the larger bench clarified that the July 21, 2025 hearing was conducted despite not being included in the official cause list. Additionally, the judge who heard the matter was not listed in the duty roster for that day.
The court emphasized that only the chief justice of the Islamabad High Court has the authority to constitute benches. As the “master of the roster,” the chief justice determines which judges hear specific cases. Therefore, any bench formed without proper approval lacks jurisdiction to proceed.
The judgment clearly stated that no judge or bench can assume jurisdiction independently. They cannot initiate proceedings, retain cases, transfer matters, or take up issues on their own authority without following established procedures under Article 202 of the Constitution and relevant High Court Rules.
Because the earlier bench was not legally constituted, the court ruled that the IHC contempt notices had no legal standing and must be withdrawn.
Authority of the Chief Justice
A major takeaway from this ruling is the reaffirmation of the chief justice’s administrative powers. The larger bench reiterated that the chief justice has exclusive authority to form benches and assign cases. This system ensures consistency, avoids overlapping jurisdiction, and prevents conflicting decisions within the same court.
The judgment also clarified that the chief justice can combine similar petitions to streamline judicial work and may transfer a case from one bench to another at any stage. Importantly, the chief justice is not required to obtain consent from a bench before transferring a matter under consideration.
This interpretation strengthens the administrative structure of the court and sets a clear precedent for future procedural disputes.
Legal and Political Implications
The withdrawal of the IHC contempt notices carries both legal and political implications. Legally, it reinforces the principle that jurisdiction must be properly established before any judicial action is taken. It highlights the importance of following constitutional procedures to maintain the credibility of court decisions.
Politically, the case had placed the prime minister and federal cabinet under scrutiny. By recalling the earlier order, the larger bench effectively removed the immediate legal pressure stemming from the contempt proceedings.
However, the core issue of Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s situation remains unresolved. Her imprisonment in the United States continues to be a matter of public interest, diplomatic discussion, and legal debate within Pakistan.
Ensuring Judicial Discipline
The ruling also serves as a reminder about judicial discipline and institutional integrity. Courts function effectively when procedures are followed meticulously. The concept of the chief justice as “master of the roster” is designed to protect the judicial system from procedural irregularities.
By setting aside the earlier decision, the Islamabad High Court has clarified boundaries regarding bench formation and jurisdiction. This step aims to prevent confusion and safeguard the legitimacy of future rulings.
The withdrawal of the IHC contempt notices in the Dr Aafia Siddiqui case marks an important procedural development within Pakistan’s judicial system. The larger bench’s decision underscores the necessity of proper bench constitution and adherence to constitutional guidelines.
While the legal debate surrounding jurisdiction has been addressed for now, the broader discussions about Dr Aafia’s case and diplomatic efforts related to her imprisonment are likely to continue. For the judiciary, this ruling reinforces the importance of structure, authority, and procedural correctness in maintaining public trust and legal stability.
