ISLAMABAD: The Jud­i­cial Commission of Paki­stan (JCP) has once again postponed its much-anticipated meeting to appoint regular chief justices to four high courts, including the Islamabad High Court (IHC), where a seniority dispute among judges has remained unresolved.

The meeting, originally slated for April 18, was rescheduled for May 2 and then again fixed for May 19, and was expected to finalise nominations for permanent appointments to the IHC, the Sindh High Court (SHC), the Pesh­awar High Court (PHC), and the Balochistan High Court (BHC).

However, the JCP headed by Chief Justice of Paki­stan Yahya Afridi issued a notification stating that the meeting was deferred. The notification did not mention a new date or any reason for the postponement, even though the four high courts are being led by acting chief justices after the respective judges were elevated to the Supreme Court.

The delay comes amid an ongoing constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench regarding the transfer of three judges from other high courts to the IHC — Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar from the LHC, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro from the SHC, and Justice Muham­mad Asif from the BHC. The Minis­try of Law issued the transfer notifications on February 1, following which the IHC revised its seniority list on February 3, ranking Justice Dogar as the senior puisne judge.

This revision triggered opposition from five IHC judges — Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Babar Sattar, and Saman Rafat Imtiaz — who challenged Justice Dogar’s seniority and his subsequent appointment as acting chief justice on February 12.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing multiple petitions, including those filed by the IHC judges, former prime minister Imran Khan, and four bar associations, challenging the legality of the judge transfers, the seniority list, and the February 8 decision on judges’ representation.

Then-IHC CJ Aamer Farooq had rejected the objections raised by judges regarding the transfer. In his ruling, Justice Farooq cited Article 200 of the Constitution, which allows the president of Pakistan to transfer judges between high courts with their consent and following consultations with the chief justice of Pakistan and the relevant high court chiefs.

In its response, the Supreme Court registrar has defended the transfers, citing Article 200(1) of the Constitution, which allows the president to transfer judges with their consent and after consultation with the chief justice of Pakistan and relevant high court chief justices.

The law ministry maintained that proper consultation occurred on February 1, the day of the notification. The judicial commission, in its written reply to the Supreme Court, emphasised that it operated under Article 175-A of the Constitution and remained committed to upholding the Constitution.

Published in Dawn, May 15th, 2025