The Office of the Supreme Court Registrar (SC) rendered the constitutional requests filed by five judges of the High Court of Islamabad (IHC), citing Monday several procedural objections, according to judicial sources.
The petitions, which challenged the powers of the IHC chief judge, Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, were filed under article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
Article 184 (3) of the Pakistan Constitution grants the original competence of the Supreme Court to hear questions of public importance concerning the application of one of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution.
The registrar’s office has raised several objections, noting that the judges did not specify any question of public importance or to identify the fundamental rights allocated to justify the initial jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Sources said objections indicated that petitions seemed to be motivated by personal grievances rather than questions of public interest.
The office cited the previous one of the Supreme Court in Zulfiqar Mehdi vs Pia, which does not allow petitions based on personal disputes under article 184 (3).
The registrar also observed that requests did not meet the essential requirements of article 184, paragraph 3, had no clear explanation to issue opinions to respondents and did not provide solid reasons for filing constitutional petitions.
The five CIH judges had sought to challenge the administrative powers of the Chief Dogar by their petitions.
Read: 5 The IHC judges dispute the powers of CJ in SC
Earlier, five CIH judges went to SC in person to deposit distinct constitutional petitions, contesting several administrative measures taken by the chief judge of the IHC, DOGAR.
The judges – Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz have deposited the petitions under article 184 (3) of the Constitution, making one of the judicial taking of the Constitution.
On September 16, a division bench, comprising Chief Dogar and judge Muhammad Azam Khan, prevented judge Jahangiri from exercising his functions when he took a petition that Warranto accusing the judge of holding a questionable diploma of LLB – a decision that deepened the abyss within the magistrate.
Interestingly, the bench also asked for help from the Pakistan Attorney General (AGP) Mansoor Awan on the question of whether the petition was kept.
He also appointed the main lawyers lawyers Zafarullah Khan and Ashtar Ali Ausaf as Amici Curiae. The bench noted that until the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) – the Judges’ responsibility forum, who was also approached against Judge Jahangiri – decided the case, the judge could not treat cases.
In their petitions, the judges of the IHC urged the SC to declare that a high court judge can only be retained from working by exercising legal duties under article 209 of the Constitution.
Find out more: IHC judges dispute the authority of the CJ on cases transfers, the judge’s moves
They argued that a brief of quo guaranteed seeking the referral of a judge of his functions is not kept in terms of article 209 (7) read with article 199, paragraph 1, of the Constitution.
In his petition, judge Jahangiri described the order of September 16 as a violation of his fundamental rights under article 10-A. Sources have indicated that the judge’s request had been assigned to the newspaper of the newspaper 23409 and that he could contest his case itself before the Supreme Court.
Petitioners also asked the high -level court to declare that administrative powers cannot be deployed to Saper or Trump Judicial Power of High Court Judges and that the chief judge is not authorized to build benches or to transfer business, once a bench is seized of the case.
He urged the court to declare that the chief judge of a high court cannot exclude the available judges from the list, at will, and use power to issue a list to oust judges from the execution of judicial functions;
He also asked the SC to declare that the constitution of the benches, the transfer of the business and the issuance of the list can only be carried out in accordance with the rules adopted by the entire High Court under article 202, read with article 192 (1) of the Constitution.
“Declare that the doctrine of the” master of the list “was definitively canceled in SC decisions, including in Raja Amer Khan V Federation of Pakistan and decision -making regarding the constitution of benches, the transfer of business or the delivery of alignment cannot be based solely in the hands of the CJ.”
The judges also asked that the Superior Court illegal declares the training of the administration committees of the IHC through notifications of 03.02.2025 and 15.07.2025, and all the measures taken by them.
Petitions also urged SC to declare that the adoption and approval of the IHC practice and procedure rules, 2025, by the Administration Committee, and its notification without the prior approval of the IHC, were in violation of article 192 (1) read with article 202 of the Constitution.
“Offer at the IHC to provide effective supervision and monitoring on the functioning of the judiciary of district, such as mandated by the Constitution under article 203, and article 6 of the 2010 IHC law, and to predict the judiciary of the Islamabad district as a permanent institution, whose members enjoy judicial independence and can fulfill their legal duties without consideration or favorable;
“Declare that the High Court cannot issue a brief under article 199 of the Constitution to itself and that a High Court division bench is not jurisdictionally revealed to sit on appeal on the interlocutory orders of a single bench and cannot assume control of the procedures of a single bench as if it were a court or a lower court,” added the petition.
The same IHC judges had opposed the transfer of three judges – including Dogar judge – other high lessons at the IHC in February of this year.
After the rejection of their representation by the chief judge of the IHC, Aamer Farooq, these judges had approached the SC, whose constitutional bench (CB) rejected their petitions on June 20. The intra-haired call for judges against the CB order is still in progress.
On March 26, 2024, six CIH judges, including all judges of the petitioner, wrote a letter to the supreme judicial council of Pakistan (SJCP), alleging interference by an intelligence agency in legal matters.
The letter documented cases of pressure on judges by the abduction and torture of their loved ones and secret surveillance within their residences.
