Islamabad:
The chief of a constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court observed that the transfer of a judge from a high court to another is a process which cannot be completed without the consent of all those involved.
“The president has the power to transfer a judge, but the process may end if the judge concerned or the chief judge of his own high court or the chief judge of the High Court where he is transferred or the chief judge of Pakistan does not agree,” noted judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
Judge Mazhar led a CB of five members, hearing the petitions filed against the transfer of three judges of provincial high lessons before the High Court of Islamabad (IHC) in February of this year and the subsequent change of the seniority list of the high court of the capital.
Lawyer Salahuddin, lawyer for the five CIH judges who challenged the transfer, continued his refutation arguments, claiming that article 200 of the Constitution only applies to sub-section 3.
He argued that in the public service, a transfer from one department to another affects seniority, unlike the judiciary where no deputation or merger of judges of two high lessons takes place.
The Advocate General of Punjab, Amjad Pervez, also made a various request during the hearing.
Judge Salahuddin Panhwar inquired about the request, to which Pervez replied that he had submitted a historic judicial transfers file from 1947 to 1976 and recognized that even if they were not part of the case, an opinion under rule 27-A had been issued to them. Judge Mazhar noted that the opinion of 27-A is specifically to become a party, and the Advocate General should have followed the Attorney General of Pakistan to present arguments.
After the completion of refutation, the court led other councils representing the petitioners to conclude their arguments on Tuesday. The hearing was then adjourned until today.
