The Federal Government urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to dismiss the pleas against the transfer of judges to the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) and the subsequent changes in the Antiquity list.
In February, Judge Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar of the Superior Court of Lahore (LHC), Judge Khadim Hussain Soomro of the Superior Court of Sindh (SHC) and Judge Muhammad Asif of the Superior Court of Baluchistan (BHC) were transferred to the IHC.
The controversy focuses on the alteration of the seniority list of the judges after these transfers such as Justice Dogar became the judge of Puisne, which raided the path for appointment as the IHC CJ in functions after the elevation of Judge Aamer Faooq al SC.
According to the requests presented by five IHC judges, among others, these three cannot be considered IHC judges until they have lent a new oath in accordance with article 194 of the Constitution.
In his response, the federal government sought the dismissal of the supplications, since the three judges have been “transferred according to the Constitution … [and they] They are not obliged to take a new oath after transfer ”, since under article 200, it did not mean a new appointment.
“[The judges were transferred to] “Bring transparency in the Judiciary, does not affect judicial independence,” reads the response presented by the additional attorney general of Islamabad, a copy of which it is available with Dawn.com.
“Article 200 (1) deals with the president’s power to transfer to the judges from one superior court to another, thus attributing a clear permanence to the transfer,” he said.
“There is no use of the term ‘for said period’ or ‘during the period’ in clause (1) of article 200 clearly reflects that the transfer to it, unlike the clause (3), [is] Not in the nature of a temporary arrangement, ”added the answer.
“The permanence of the transfer by virtue of article 200 (1) is also evident for the fact that to send to the Judge of the Cesions back to his Superior Court of Parents, the President will have to follow the complete procedure provided in article 200 (1) again.”
Meanwhile, the Bar Association of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHCBA) announced in a statement today that he withdrew his statement in the case, stating that it is a “constitutional issue that must be resolved by constitutional institutions.”
The Association added that the case involved the judges themselves, and that is why it should not be a harmed part in the matter.
The IHCBA said that its executive committee unanimously signed an agreement to withdraw the declaration.
