Islamabad: five judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) have challenged the decision of the Supreme Court to defend the transfer of three judges from other courts superior to the Federal Capital.
The appeal was presented on Saturday, two days before the meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to appoint the chief judges of at least three superior courts on July 1.
In his judgment announced on June 19, the Constitutional Bank of the Supreme Court had sustained by the majority of 3-2 that the transfer of three judges to IHC from Punjab, Sindh and Superior Courts of Baluchistan were within the framework of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Bank had also partially sent the matter to the President to determine the age of the judges, depending on their service records.
Now, the judges of IHC Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ijaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz, who originally challenged transfers, have presented an intra-catthe (Ica) attraction against the June 19 trial.
The ICA, conmooked jointly by the main lawyer Muneer A. Malik and the lawyer Salahuddin Ahmed, urged the court to set aside the order in the interest of justice.
While the appeal is heard, the Supreme Court must grant a provisional reparation against the sentence, the applicants declared.
The five judges have asked the Supreme Court not to consider Judges Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, Khadim Hussain Soomro and Muhammad Asif as Judges of IHC until they provide fresh oaths in accordance with article 194 Justice Dogar is also the justice of IHC acted.
The appeal argued that section 3 of the Law of the Superior Court of Islamabad of 2010 only establishes the appointment of judges for the IHC of other provinces, but does not refer to transfers.
The appeal argued that the order of June 19 is read inadmissibly in “permanent” in article 200 (1) and (2) of the Constitution when said language was not contained in the provision.
The appeal declared that the Constitutional Bank had misunderstood the provisions of article 200 when reading sub-artico (1) in isolation from other provisions of the article by not maintaining that the transfers provided in article 200 (1) were only for a temporary period and specified for a time.
The order also did not interpret articles 200 and 175a, without sinking and undermining the powers of JCP under article 175a of the Constitution, argued the appeal that adds the independence of the Judiciary does not allow the Executive to grant a much more expansive power than the text of article 200 and the fundamental principles of the Constitutional Law can support.
The concept of federalism also requires that the role of the provincial authority in the permanent filling of the vacancies of the judges should not usurp, he added.
The June 19 judgment had partially forward the matter to the President to determine the age of after examining the service record of the judges transferred as soon as possible, including the issue of whether these transfers were permanent or temporary.
The president’s powers under article 200 (1) are two different provisions that deal with different situations and subtleties and neither are overlapping or annul sense that the posts are vacancies. Filling by JCP through new appointments.
Posted in Dawn, June 29, 2025
