- The federal government submits a seven -page response to the Supreme Court.
- Said the transfer in any case undermines judicial independence.
- The Constitution does not mention the provision of temporary transfers. “”
Islamabad: The federal government submitted its response to the Supreme Court concerning the seniority case of judges on Wednesday, urging the Supreme Court to reject all the petitions contesting the appointments of judges, including those of the High Court of Islamabad.
“The statements of the petitioners are refused on all the counts and it is argued that the process initiated under article 200 for the transfer of judges of Punjab, Sindh and the high court of Baloutchistan demonstrates and gives transparency and in no way undermine the independence of PK Press Club News.
A bench of five members, led by judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar and comprising Judges Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Salahuddin Panhwar and Shakeel Ahmed took petitions filed by five IHC judges, the Karachi Bar Association (KBA) and the IHC association, among others.
In February, five IHC judges moved SC against the appointment of judge Sarfraz Dogar as an acting chief of the IHC as well as the transfer of judges of three high lessons to the high court of the capital.
Five IHC judges – judge Mohin Akhtar Kiyani, judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, judge Babar Sattar, judge Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and judge Saman Riffat Imtiaz filed a petition before the Court under article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
The judges of the IHC urged the Supreme Court to declare that the president has no discretionary power without hindrance and unbridled to transfer the judges from a high court to another, under article 200 (1) of the Constitution, without manifest public interest, and in a way which hinders the principles of independence of the judiciary and separation of powers.
The five IHC jurists also requested the Supreme Court to declare that, in accordance with the established law pronounced by the highest court in the Aslam Awan and Farrukh Irfan case, the inter-SE-SE-SE seniority of 9-11 will be determined from the date they take as the judges of the IHC and will therefore be inferior to the list of scenists.
In its response submitted today, the federal government argued that judges are not required to take an oath after a transfer, because a transfer under article 200 does not constitute a new appointment.
“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 said.
The argument that transfers are temporary has also been rejected, the government indicating that the Constitution does not mention any provision of these temporary judges.
“No use of the term” for such a period “or” during the period “of the clause (1) of article 200 clearly reflects that the transfer under this, unlike the clause (3), and not in the nature of a temporary arrangement. The permanence of the transfer under article 200 (1) is also obvious from the fact that to return the article to its height of the high parent, the president Virtue of article 200 (1), ”
The federal government stressed that before launching the process under article 200, paragraph 1, the Pakistan Judicial Commission (JCP) on January 1, 2025 appointed two additional judges to the IHC while leaving three vacant positions.
According to the federal government, the Ministry of Law had sent a summary for the transfer of judges to the High Court of Islamabad on January 28. He stressed that the role of the president in such transfers is limited, and the real authority lies in the chief judge of Pakistan (CJP).
Consequently, the government requested the rejection of all the petitions filed against the appointments of judges, including those of the High Court of Islamabad.
Last audience
During the previous hearing, the lawyer for the judges of the IHC, Muneer, Malik, argued that the case should be interpreted in the light of article 175, because it concerns judicial transfers, federalism and the role of administrative committees.
To this, the judge of SC Mazhar said that the transfers of the judges are part of article 200 and that the court could not deal with judges as civil servants.
The judge described the four -level process of the transfer of a judge: the consent of the transferred judge, the main judges of the sending and receipt of the high lessons, and the final approval of the chief judge of Pakistan, after which the president issues the official notification.
He asked the lawyer if the objection was on the transfer or the seniority list, to which Malik replied: “both”.
Judge Mazhar also commented on the practice of adding a new language to the Constitution, citing criticism of article 62, paragraph 1) (f), the lifetime disqualification verdict, which was then modified during the examination.
The Afghan judge asked: “Why were the new judges not appointed in the same provinces instead of transferring those existing when vacancies were available?”
He also asked if an oath specifically mentions which high court the judge swore in allegiance. Malik replied that the Oath project specifies the territory of the capital of Islamabad in the case of IHC appointments.
Before the adjournment procedure until April 17, the court made opinions to the acting chief of the High Court of Islamabad, Sarfraz Dogar, judge Khadim Hussain, judge Muhammad Asif, the judicial commission and the attorney general of Pakistan in response to the petitions filed by the five judges.
