JUSTICES (R) IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, KHURSHID ANWAR BINDER, HAMID ALI SHAH, ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, versus
Article 204 Contempt of Court Ordinance (p. 2003), Sections 3 and 18 (2), affirming the judgment passed by the seven-member Bench of the Supreme Court, under oath by the Interim Judges and Judges of the High Courts. ? The Constitution Order, 2007 and the Office of Judges (Judges) Order, 2007, allow for the accusation of the respondents (excluding both) for contempt of the Supreme Court for disobeying an order passed by a seven-member bench. ) There was enough content available. In the facts and circumstances of the case, which was adopted on 3/11 11 2007, the constitution and the law did not prohibit the respondents from acting under Article 204 of the Constitution even though they could be judges and judges of the Supreme Court. Are. The High Courts; they were not exempt from proceedings under Section 204 of the Constitution and the contempt of court Ordinance 2003 so that the court could be subjected to contempt of the Supreme Court, so it was imperative that action be taken against the defendants and exclude the two. Should be heard at the hearing. By law, the Supreme Court, noting the information submitted by the two respondents and the contents of their responses, found that the two respondents took oath on 14-12 2007 under the Interim Constitution Order, 2007. , Because they were not judges. The High Court, whether on 3 11 2007 or any subsequent, did not violate the 3 11 2007 order even though it would have violated its sentiment, although under the provisional constitutional order two oaths were taken under oath. The respondents said that 2007, and thereafter the preparation for acting as judges was terminated under Section 18 (2) of the contempt of court Ordinance, 2003, two respondents said
