Islamabad:
A constitutional bench of five members (CB) of the Supreme Court raised several questions on a new oath on Friday by the judges of the High Court during their transfer to another high court and the status of their seniority in the event of new positions.
The CB chief judge, judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar, told the petitioner lawyer in the case of transfer of judges that there were contradictions in his arguments. He raised the question of how a judge could take an oath.
When the hearing of the case began, the lawyer for the petitioner Faisal Siddiqui cited the example of India, where the judges were not invited to their consent for their transfer. Consequently, he added that when the judge had been transferred there, his seniority remained unaffected.
In Pakistan, he said that the appointment of judges was compulsory for the judicial committee, but that he was not compulsory for the president to transfer the judges. Judge Mazhar pointed out that the president had the constitutional power to transfer judges.
Sitting on the bench, judge Salahuddin Panhwar reminded Siddiqui that he had said that he would focus on the issue of seniority in his arguments. The lawyer replied that the transfer of judges was linked to time and quoted the appointment of judges of the High Court to the Federal Court of Sharia (FSC) for three years.
Judge Mazhar asked the lawyer to know what was the link between the appointment of judges to the FSC and the issue of transfer.
He said that the status of FSC judge was higher, while the status of a judge transferred from a high court to another high court remained the same.
Siddiqui said that Judge Asif was an additional judge, so how an additional judge could be appointed CIH judge after transfer.
At one point, Judge Naeem Akhtar Afghan said that the authority of the judicial commission could not be made ineffective by naming permanent judges by the transfer.
Judge Mazhar asked the lawyer if the transferred judges were transferred to their high original courtyard, what would be their seniority there. The lawyer replied that when a judge was sent to the Supreme Court as an acting judge, his seniority before the High Court was not affected.
During the hearing, judge Mazhar pointed out that the fundamental question in the question was whether the transferred judge would take the oath or not, but that there were contradictions in the arguments transmitted by the lawyers of the petitioner.
On the one hand, judge Mazhar told Siddiqui, he argued that the transferred judge should take the oath on the other side, it was indicated that the transfer could not be permanent. How a judge could lend two or three oaths at the same time, he asked.
Judge Mazhar observed that when a judge was sworn in, the former oath would be canceled. He also said that before the Supreme Court there was a difference between an acting judge and a transferred judge. Later, the hearing was adjourned until Monday.
