Islamabad:
Five Islamabad High Court (IHC) Judes have refused to accept justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar as a judge of the IHC, Roist alarms over his seniority and the legitimacy of his coverage, urging the ihc chief justice to remedy the situation before the crucial judicial commission of Meeting of Pakistan (JCP).
In a representation subject to IHC CJ Aamer Farooq, the Mohin Akhtar Kayani judges, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz have argued that Dogar judge cannot be considered as a iHc judge until ‘He takes the served under article 194 of the Constitution.
“The process of the appointment of judge Dogar as a judge of the High Court of Islamabad is however not complex, because it has not yet taken an oath to serve the High Court of Islamabad as article 194 is necessary.
Lawyers have argued that once the Dogar judge takes the oath as a judge of the IHC, his seniority must be determined from the date on which the oath is administered to him by the CJ IHC. Consequently, the Dogar judge will be lower in seniority than the undersigned judges who took an oath before him.
The judges urged the IHC chief judge to resolve the case before the JCP meeting scheduled for February 10.
“We approve a copy of this representation to the honorable judge -in -chief of Pakistan, in his capacity as JCP president, to bring the case to the attention of JCP, for fear that the legality of the procedures led by JCP on 10.02. 2025 is also generated due to the examination of judges to appoint the Supreme Court of a panel of judges illegally and erroneous of the High Court of Islamabad, “said judges.
They argue that the hypothesis of a post of a judge is subordinate to an oath under article 194, which grants a judicial authority in the jurisdiction of the respective high court.
The oath does not allow it to serve beyond this territorial jurisdiction, they also affirmed.
The representation also noted that the Dogar judge had not yet taken an oath as an CIH judge and only judged as a judge of the High Court of Lahore. However, the IHC seniority list already lists him as a CIH judge, placing him directly below the chief judge.
“This demonstrates a serious jurisdictional error, because a judge cannot be considered as having been applied to a high court, until he takes the oath for this particular high court.”
“Brazen tries to pack the court”
Commenting on development, lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii said that the inclusion of judges from Sindh and Balutchistan was a simple “dressing”, saying that the real problem revolves around the appointment of Dogar judge.
“It is just the Dogar judge and to use it to interrupt seniority in the IHC and to deprive the independent judges of their deserved post in this court.”
Jaferii criticized the chief judge of the IHC, saying that he disagreed with the majority of his own judges.
He noted that for years, the IHC was led by a CJ who dropped his colleagues and helped the powerful circles to brush their claims of interference under the carpet.
“It is something that the government cannot afford to lose,” he noted, adding that the government was trying to manipulate the structure of the seniority of the IHC, using the “federal representation” as an excuse.
“The IHC already has a federal representation. There are judges of Karachi, Swat and Quetta. Judge Quetta complained for the last time that his father was brought and held before him as a coercive measure” , he said.
Jaferii asked why the government had opted for the transfer of judges to service instead of appointing new candidates from Sindh and Balutchistan.
“If it were a positive action, there were lists submitted for the high court of the Sindh and the high court of Balutchistan where the candidates could not cut. These candidates could have been considered for New appointments at the CI.
Finding the move of a “brainfed and cheeky attempt to make a court”, he expressed his shock as for the role of the chief judge of Pakistan in legitimization.
“It is shocking that the chief judge of the country joins to celebrate it as a gesture of inclusion,” added the lawyer.
Likewise, lawyer Hasan Mann said that the Constitution provided for only one procedure for the point of view of a high court judge – through the prescribed initial appointment process, without alternating.
He explained that although article 200, paragraph 1, allowed the transfer of a judge from the high court from one high court to another, such a transfer cannot be permanent, because the president did not The power to appoint a high court judge by transfer.
In addition, Mann stressed that article 200 (1) cannot be read in isolation, because article 200 (2) declared the temporary nature of these transfers. Any interpretation suggesting the opposite will grant the president the power to manipulate the seniority of the high court judges, contradicting the verdict of the 2014 Supreme Court.
If a high court judge was permanently transferred, he would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list, as is the case in civil services. Any other arrangement, argued Mann, would create chaos in the Su-Par-Paraper judicial system.
This is why the consent of the assignee judge was essential, because such a decision could put it in disadvantage.
He added that comparisons with the Indian judicial power are not relevant, because the provisions of the Indian Constitution are formulated differently.
Administrative re -moute in IHC
Meanwhile, following the addition of three new judges, the CIH chief judge made several administrative changes.
Judge Sardar Sarfraz Dogar was appointed administrator of the anti -terrorist courts (ATC) and national responsibility courts, replacing the Mohsin Akhtar Kayani judge.
Judge Muhammad Azam Khan was appointed administrative judge for the district courts of Islamabad (west), judge Arbab Muhammad Tahir was accused of the FIA courts and judge Saman Rafat Imtiaz was appointed administrative judge of banking courts.
