ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Tuesday raised serious concerns regarding the recent transfers of judges in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) while hearing the case in this regard.
A SC five-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard the case.
Senior lawyer Hamid Khan argued that the process of transferring judges from the high courts requires careful consideration and highlighted the unusual haste shown in transferring judges within the Islamabad High Court.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that, “In India, the consent of the judge is not required for transfers; the decision is made in consultation with the Chief Justice. However, in our jurisdiction, seeking the judge’s consent is a constitutional requirement.”
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan noted that India’s high court judges belong to a unified cadre system, whereas in Pakistan, there is no unified seniority list for high court judges.
Justice Shakeel Ahmad added that in India, all high court judges are listed under one seniority framework.
Continuing his arguments, Hamid Khan contended that there was no meaningful consultation by the Chief Justice of Pakistan in the judge transfer process. Justice Naeem Afghan responded, clarifying that the matter concerns consent rather than consultation alone.
Hamid Khan further alleged that the real objective was to bring in Justice Sarfraz Dogar, while the transfer of the other two judges was merely a cover. “Article 200 was misused to abuse authority,” he asserted.
Advocate Idrees Ashraf, representing the founder of PTI, pointed out that the official notification of the judge transfers did not specify any duration. He argued that transferring judges without clearly defined terms could create divisions within the existing high court judiciary.
“There must be no discrimination among judges,” he added.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar questioned, “Are you suggesting that Article 25 (equality before the law) should be considered in judge transfers? Would you be satisfied if the transfer period was fixed for two years? The real issue here is seniority,”.
The hearing was adjourned until 9:30 am the next day when the counsel for PTI’s founder is expected to continue his arguments.
Seven new judges Join Supreme Court with Oath-Taking Ceremony
