Table of Contents
In a significant development within Pakistan’s judicial system, the Supreme Court on Monday began hearing a set of petitions challenging the recent transfer of judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and the subsequent restructuring of judicial seniority. The case, which is being closely watched by legal experts and bar associations across the country, has been brought forward under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan.
The case was taken up by a five-member constitutional bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, and includes Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, and Justice Shakeel Ahmed.
Petitioners: Sitting IHC Judges and Bar Associations
The primary petitioners in the case include five sitting judges of the IHC:
- Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani
- Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri
- Justice Babar Sattar
- Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan
- Justice Saman Riffat Imtiaz
They have been joined by the Karachi Bar Association (KBA) and the Islamabad High Court Bar Association, underlining the widespread concern within the legal community regarding the matter.
Grounds for the Petition: Independence, Seniority, and Due Process
The petitioners argue that the recent transfer of judges to the IHC — including the appointment of Justice Sarfraz Dogar as the acting chief justice — was executed without adherence to constitutional requirements and without serving any clear public interest. They claim this undermines the principles of judicial independence, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.
Citing Article 200(1) of the Constitution, the judges contend that the president of Pakistan does not have unfettered discretion to transfer judges between high courts without valid justification and proper process. They further argue that such transfers should only be allowed in cases of manifest public interest and with appropriate consultation and consent from relevant stakeholders.
Deadliest Strike of the Year: Russian Missiles Kill 32 in Ukraine’s Sumy
Additionally, the petition challenges the inter-se seniority of the recently transferred judges, asserting that according to precedent set in the Aslam Awan and Farrukh Irfan cases, the transferred judges should be ranked in seniority from the date they take oath in the new court, placing them below the existing IHC judges.
SC Bench Issues Notices to Judicial and Legal Authorities
After hearing preliminary arguments from senior counsel Muneer A. Malik, representing the IHC judges, the Supreme Court bench ordered the issuance of notices to all relevant parties. These include:
- Justice Sarfraz Dogar, Acting Chief Justice of IHC
- Justice Khadim Hussain
- Justice Muhammad Asif
- Judicial Commission of Pakistan
- Attorney General of Pakistan
- Advocates General of all provinces and Islamabad Capital Territory
The notices were issued in accordance with Order XXVIII-A, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The case is set to continue on April 17, 2025, at 11:30 AM.
Key Observations from the Bench
During the hearing, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar made it clear that judges cannot be treated like civil servants, emphasizing that judicial transfers must go through a four-tier process:
- Consent of the judge being transferred
- Approval from the Chief Justice of the transferring high court
- Approval from the Chief Justice of the receiving high court
- Final nod from the Chief Justice of Pakistan, followed by official notification from the President
He also pressed the petitioners to clarify whether their objection was rooted in the transfer itself or the resulting change in seniority. Counsel Muneer Malik confirmed that both issues are central to the petition.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan questioned the rationale behind transferring judges instead of appointing new ones from the same provinces with existing vacancies. He also raised concerns about the territorial allegiance stipulated in the judges’ oath — particularly in the context of appointments to the Islamabad High Court.
Implications: A Test of Judicial Independence
This case holds serious implications for the future of judicial autonomy in Pakistan. It may redefine how judicial transfers are regulated and scrutinized and may serve as a landmark precedent regarding executive authority over the judiciary.
Furthermore, with bar associations from multiple provinces expressing their concerns, the outcome of this case could either reaffirm or shake public trust in the transparency and fairness of judicial appointments and promotions.
