Five judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC): namely, Judges Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Saman Riffat and Ejaz Ishaq Khan, presented separate requests in the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday.
In requests, available with Dawn.comThe IHC, the president of the Superior Court and the Pakistan Federation have been nominated as surveyed in the requests.
In their requests, the judges moved the SC to declare that the administrative powers could not “deploy to undermine or overcome the judicial powers” of the judges of the Superior Court.
In addition, they asked the Apex court to declare that a president of the Superior Court “was not authorized to constitute banks or transfer cases” once a bank of the Superior Court was assigned.
In addition, the requests sought the statement that the President of the Superior Court “cannot exclude the available judges from the list, at will, and use the power to issue a list to expel judges to perform judicial functions.”
The SC was also urged to declare “that the constitution of the banks, the transfer of cases and the issuance of the list can only be made in accordance with the rules adopted by the entire Superior Court of article 202 (Rules of Procedure), read with article 192 (1) (Constitution of the Superior Court) of the Constitution.”
The petitioners also asked the Apex court to declare that “decision making” regarding the constitution of banks, the issuance of the list and the transfer of cases could not “rest only in the hands of the president of the President of the Supreme Court.”
“Declare that the ‘master’s doctrine of the list’ has definitely reserved in the decisions of the Supreme Court,” said the requests.
The requests further requested the declaration that the formation of the IHC Administration Committees through notifications dated February 3 and July 15 and all the actions taken by them “suffer of bad fidelity in the law and are illegal.” They asked the court to put aside these notifications and all the actions taken by the administration committees constituted under them by “being illegal and Coram not Judice.”
In addition, they declared: “They declare that the adoption and approval of the rules of practice and procedure of the Superior Court of Islamabad, 2025, by the Administration Committee illegally constituted, and its notification without the prior approval of the Superior Court is in breach of article 192 (1) and article 202 of the Constitution, and its subsequent support in September, is illegal and without any legal effect.”
The judges also declared in their prayers that the SC “directs to the IHC to provide effective supervision and supervision” on the functioning of the Judicial Power of the District, as ordered by the Constitution under article 203, which establishes that each Superior Court will supervise and control all subordinate courts.
The petitioner asked the SC to “declare that a superior court cannot issue a court order under article 199 of the Constitution to itself.” Article 199 refers to the jurisdiction of a superior court.
They continued: “A division bank of the Superior Court is not acquired with jurisdiction to sit in appeal for the interlocutory orders of a single bank or can assume control over the procedures of a single bank as if it were a lower court or court.”
An interlocutory order refers to a temporary trial approved in an ongoing case.
The petitioners asked the SC to declare that a judge of the Superior Court can only be “restricted to work to perform judicial tasks under article 209 and that a judicial order of quo that seeks the elimination of a judge of the position can not be maintained.”
Article 209 of the Constitution allows the Supreme Judicial Council to carry out investigations on the capacity and conduct of the judges of the Supreme Court and the Superior Court.
The petitioners concluded their statement by asking the SC to “grant any other relief considered appropriate in the circumstances of this case.”
Rift within IHC
Today’s development has once again highlighted the deep cracks within the IHC, which won prominence as Judge Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar was appointed president of the Superior Court.
Judge Dogar was sworn as judge of the Superior Court of Lahore in June 2015 and then transferred to the IHC on February 1.
On February 13, he was appointed as the president of the Supreme Court of the IHC in the midst of reservations expressed by some judges about his antiquity. The next day, he led an oath at a boycotted ceremony by his fellow judges. The law agencies of the Federal Capital also “rejected” their appointment as President of Interine Justice.
All IHC judges were invited, but five of them, the same ones who presented requests in the SC today, did not attend the ceremony.
On February 20, the five judges presented a representation, stating that, according to the Constitution, a judge of the Superior Court must make a new oath after the transfer to a different superior court, which should affect their classification of seniority.
More to follow
