• SHC registrar submits concise statement
• Five IHC judges challenge legality of judicial transfers without fresh oath

ISLAMABAD: Senior counsel Muneer A. Malik, representing five Islamabad High Court judges, informed the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court that he intended to file a rejoinder to rebut the federal government’s position as stated in its concise statement submitted before the court.

“I will file a rebuttal and a concise statement in a couple of days after examining all the replies and concise statements,” said Mr Malik, the counsel for justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz.

These judges have petitioned the Constitutional Bench, requesting that three judges transferred to the IHC not be treated as its sitting judges until they take a fresh oath under Article 194, read in conjunction with Schedule III of the Constitution.

Consequently, the five-judge CB adjourned the proceedings until April 29, allowing time for the petitioners to submit their rebuttal.

The bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, is seized with a set of petitions concerning the inter-se seniority of five IHC judges.

During the hearing, Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan informed the court about the concise statement filed by the federal government, along with the complete record related to the initiation of the transfer process for three judges to the IHC. He also referred to concise statements submitted by the registrars of the Supreme Court and various high courts, the secretary of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), and additional grounds presented by the Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) and the Lahore Bar Association (LBA).

SHC’s concise statement

Meanwhile, Sindh High Court registrar Suhail Muhammad Laghari submitted a concise statement on Tuesday, explaining that the process for the transfer of Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro to the IHC was initiated through a letter from the law ministry dated January 31 under Article 200 of the Constitution. The letter was placed before the SHC chief justice, and a reply confirming concurrence — along with Justice Soomro’s consent — was sent the same day.

The law ministry’s letter explained that Section 3 of the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010 provides for the appointment of judges from different provinces and territories of Pakistan in accordance with the Constitution. Since no judge from Sindh was serving in the IHC at the time, the summary stated that the president had authorised the initiation of consultations for a transfer.

Earlier, the federal government submitted to the Constitutional Bench the complete record of the transfer process, including the summary initiated by the government and the consents provided by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi and the chief justices of the respective high courts.

The government had previously argued before the court that the actual power to transfer a judge from one high court to another rests with the CJP, the chief justices of the high courts concerned, and the transferee judge. Under Article 200(1) of the Constitution, the president holds only limited authority in such matters.

The government also contended that the IHC must function as a representative court, and its current composition reflects the federal character of the judiciary. Presently, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir hails from Balochistan, Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz from Sindh (urban), and the then chief justice, Justice Amer Farooq, represents Punjab.

Published in Dawn, April 23rd, 2025