ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir while Justice Tahir while issuing detailed reasons for reversing the order of the erstwhile judicial service tribunal on Friday ruled that the tribunal comprising senior judges unlawfully assumed the suo motu jurisdiction to reverse the Presidential notification that replaced them with comparatively junior judges.

IHC Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir overturned an order of the Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal on Thursday that had thrown the judicial service into disarray.

The tribunal comprising Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar and Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan allowing a service appeal of Additional District and Sessions Judge Mohammad Shabbir terminated the service of over a dozen judges and set aside the deputation of over two dozen judicial officers.

The erstwhile service tribunal, while partially allowing an appeal by judicial officer Mohammad Shabbir concerning seniority and promotion, took drastic suo motu action. It declared the Presidential Notification (dated March 18, 2025) that reconstituted the Tribunal itself as illegal and set it aside. It also ordered the repatriation of all judicial officers working on deputation in Islamabad and declared certain service rules invalid.

As many as 24 judges of the Islamabad District Judiciary filed a writ petition challenging this order.

Advocate Nazir Jawad and Zahid Asif Chaudhry argued the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in questioning its own reconstitution and beyond its statutory powers under the Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 2016 (2016-Act).

They argued that the Tribunal took a suo motu notice in a matter which was not before it in violation of their fundamental rights (Articles 4 & 10A) by condemning them unheard.

The court found the Tribunal’s actions fundamentally flawed as it could not exercise suo motu jurisdiction in this matter.

The 2016-Act provides no authority for the Tribunal to take up matters suo motu, especially not the notification reconstituting itself. Its jurisdiction is strictly limited to appeals filed by aggrieved members against final departmental orders concerning their service terms.

The power to issue a writ of quo warranto (challenging the authority of office holders) is exclusively vested in the High Court under Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution. The Tribunal, a creature of statute, had no authority to effectively exercise this power by setting aside the reconstitution notification, the court ruled.

As per the judgement the Tribunal violated right to fair trial as it decided the critical issue of its own reconstitution without issuing notice or affording any hearing to the Federation, the President, the IHC, or the petitioners affected by the repatriation order.

This violated the fundamental right to fair trial and due process, the court ruled.

The Tribunal’s observations questioning the efficacy of the statutory review remedy (Section 7 of the 2016-Act) and effectively suspending it were unjustified and beyond its remit, said the court order.

It said that while the tribunal can examine the validity of service rules if directly challenged in an appeal as affecting the appellant’s terms, it lacks power to declare any law (like the IHC Act) or executive notifications (like the reconstitution) ultra vires, especially those governing its own existence.

Justice Tahir set aside Tribunal’s order dated March 21, 2025, specifically “to the extent of setting aside [Presidential] notification dated 18.03.2025” (regarding the reconstitution notification of the Tribunal).

The High Court declined to rule on the merits of the original service dispute (Shabbir’s seniority/promotion claim, the validity of service rules, or the repatriation order). Finding the statutory review remedy under Section 7 of the 2016-Act to be adequate and efficacious for those issues, it converted the writ petition into a review petition deemed pending before the service tribunal.

The converted review petition is transmitted back to the Service Tribunal comprising new judges of the IHC (as duly reconstituted under the March 18, 2025 notification) to be heard and decided on its merits according to law.

Published in Dawn, May 31st, 2025