Islamabad:
On Wednesday, the federal government urged the Supreme Court to reject the arguments against the transfer of judges to the High Court of Islamabad (CI) and subsequent changes in the seniority list.
According to petitions filed by five JUD judges, among others, the three transferred judges cannot be considered as judges of the HCA until they have taken oath in accordance with article 194 of the Constitution.
In its response, the federal government requested the rejection of the pleas because the three judges were “transferred according to the Constitution …[and they]are not required to take an oath after the transfer “as under article 200, this did not mean a new appointment.
“”[The judges were transferred to] “Bringing transparency in the judiciary, and not on judicial independence,” read the response submitted by the Attorney General of Islamabad.
“Article 200 (1) deals with the president’s power to transfer judges from a high court to another, thus assigning a clear permanence to the transfer,” he argued.
“No use of the term” for such a period “or” during the period “of article (1) of article 200 clearly reflects that the transfer under it, unlike the clause (3), [is] Not in the nature of a temporary arrangement, “added the answer.
“The permanence of the transfer under article 200, paragraph 1), is also obvious because to refer the assignee judge to his high parents’ high court, the president must follow the entire procedure provided under article 200, paragraph 1.”
Meanwhile, the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) has decided to withdraw its constitutional request from the Supreme Court which challenged the transfer of three judges from other provincial high lessons to the High Court of Islamabad (CIH).
According to a statement, a letter of authority was published to the record of the record, Annees Muhammad Shehzad, authorizing the withdrawal of the petition.
The decision was made at a meeting of the IHCBA executive committee, which ended with a unanimous vote in favor of the withdrawal of the case.
The declaration signed by the president of the IHCBA, Syed Wajid Ali Shah Gilani, and secretary Chaudhry Manzoor Ahmed Jajja noted that the decision to withdraw the petition was unanimous because the IHCBA is not an assigned part in the case.
He stressed that the question concerns the seniority of the judges, adding that the case was challenged by the judges concerned themselves before the Supreme Court.
The case is constitutional in nature and must be resolved through constitutional forums, noted the declaration.
The association of the bar specified that the constitutional request had been initially filed with the Supreme Court without the approval of its executive body by a former president of the IHCBA.
The Executive Committee was therefore unanimously decided to dissociate itself from the case and officially directed the withdrawal of the request from the Supreme Court.
