ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has reserved its verdict in a constitutional petition filed by 24 judicial officers of the capital’s district courts, challenging their repatriation to provincial high courts following a controversial tribunal ruling.

Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir, who presided over the proceedings, concluded the hearing after directing the court-appointed amicus curiae to submit written arguments.

The petition raised constitutional and legal questions regarding judicial service laws, the powers of Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal and the limits of presidential authority.

The petition was filed by a group of district and sessions judges, additional district and sessions judges and civil judges currently serving in Islamabad on deputation from Punjab, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

24 judicial officers of capital’s district courts challenged repatriation to provincial high courts

Among the petitioners are: Anti-Terrorism Court Judge Abual Hasnat Mohammad Zulqarnain, District and Sessions Judges Yar Mohammad Gondal and Nasir Javed Rana and several civil judges.

On March 21, the Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal ordered the repatriation of these officers. The ruling was issued shortly after a March 18 presidential notification that reconstituted the tribunal - replacing Justices Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar and Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan with Justices Khadim Hussain Soomro, Mohammad Azam Khan and Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas.

The outgoing tribunal members declared the presidential notification null and void and continued to adjudicate, including issuing the ruling that has now been challenged.

The petitioners argued that the decision was made by a coram non judice (unauthorised forum) as the tribunal had effectively ceased to exist following the reconstitution.

During Friday’s hearing, Advocate General Islamabad Ayaz Shaukat maintained that the March 18 notification legally dissolved the previous tribunal. He argued that any decisions made after this date were without jurisdiction. “The old tribunal, which ceased to exist, could not have made an order on March 21,” he stated.

Additional Attorney General Rashid Hafeez supported this position, noting the tribunal lacked the authority to invalidate a presidential order or summon the attorney general without notice.

Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir questioned whether due notice had been served and if the tribunal had acted beyond its jurisdiction.

Petitioners’ counsel also raised concerns about unequal treatment in judicial postings. They argued Islamabad-based judges were not rotated like those in the provinces, leading to concerns over institutional stagnation and personal bias.

Justice Tahir queried whether a judge’s prolonged stay in a single post could affect judicial impartiality.

The IHC is examining 11 key legal questions, including: whether the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under the Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act 2016, if the tribunal had any authority to declare the president’s notification unconstitutional, whether the rights of deputationist judges under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution were violated, whether the tribunal was empowered to rule on the validity of the Islamabad Judicial Service Rules 2011.

The court was informed that the petitioners were not parties to the original service appeal and were denied the opportunity to be heard - raising significant concerns about the denial of due process.

Published in Dawn, May 3rd, 2025