• ‘Continued interference’ may weaken the system, Justice Ejaz warns
• Summons deputy registrar, advocate general for cancellation of cause list
• IHC acting chief justice set to hear all pleas relating to PTI founder today
ISLAMABAD: The consolidation of all petitions related to ex-PM Imran Khan’s jail conditions apparently widened the gulf among the judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) as Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan on Wednesday raised critical questions about the transfer of a case pending before his court.
Justice Ishaq Khan, while hearing the petition of PTI lawyer Mashal Azam Yousafzai, sought responses from the deputy registrar judicial (DRJ) and advocate general for Islamabad regarding the cancellation of the cause list in a contempt petition.
The case pertains to authorities who failed to facilitate a meeting between Imran Khan and his legal team, despite court orders.
During the proceedings on Wednesday, Justice Ishaq Khan raised critical questions regarding the authority of chief justice to transfer a case without the consent of the presiding judge. He remarked that judicial accountability ultimately lies with the public, adding that such actions erode confidence in the justice system.
“If the public sees that judges become helpless in cases involving powerful individuals, they will lose faith in the judiciary,” he stated. “I am starting this process to address these fundamental questions.”
The court summoned the DRJ and advocate general Islamabad under Sections 6B and 7 after the cancellation of the cause list for a contempt petition filed by lawyer Mashal Yousafzai against the jail superintendent.
‘Acted upon orders’
When the hearing resumed, the deputy registrar informed the court that the cause list was cancelled on the instructions from the CJ’s office, which had decided to form a larger bench to hear the matter.
Justice Ishaq Khan questioned the legal basis for transferring the case without judicial consent and criticised the move as an attack on judicial independence. “Instead of cancelling the cause list, you might as well have demolished my courtroom,” he remarked sternly.
The judge further questioned whether a chief justice had unilateral authority to reassign cases at will. “If a corrupt chief justice comes to power in the future, will they also have the ability to manipulate case allocations? Are we opening the doors to corruption and nepotism?” he asked.
The court directed the DRJ to submit a written response and sought clarification from the advocate general regarding the transfer of the case.
Justice Ishaq Khan emphasised that such actions could damage the credibility of judiciary. “If the state is determined to engage in an ego battle, then there is no point in my presence here. Should I surrender my authority to the registrar’s office? Will the office dictate which judge hears which case?” he questioned.
Expressing frustration over the incident, Justice Ishaq Khan declared that initiating contempt proceedings against the larger bench’s decision to cancel the case listing was necessary to uphold judicial independence. “The real accountability of judges lies with the public,” he reiterated, warning that continued interference in judicial matters could weaken the justice system.
Larger bench
A day earlier, the IHC had constituted a larger bench to hear all petitions related to the visitation rights and prison conditions of Imran Khan, currently incarcerated at Adiala Jail.
The three-member bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir, and Justice Mohammad Azam Khan, will hear the petitions related to ex-PM’s jail facilities on Thursday (today).
Interestingly, Justice Ishaq Khan also sought response from IHC’s DRJ Sultan Mehmood and Advocate General Ayyaz Shaukat by Thursday.
The decision to consolidate the cases was made following an application by Senior Superintendent of Adiala Jail Abdul Ghafoor Anjum, who cited logistical challenges in appearing before multiple benches.
Acting Chief Justice Dogar subsequently ordered that all related petitions be heard by a single bench to ensure uniformity in adjudication.
Published in Dawn, March 20th, 2025
