ISLAMABAD: The Su­­preme Court registrar’s administrative objections to the petitions filed by Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges has deepened an unprecedented dispute within the judiciary, with the five judges subsequently consulting senior lawyers.

Last week, IHC judges — Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahan­gi­­ri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Sam­an Rafat Imtiaz — went to the Supreme Court, where four of them filed petitions concerning the internal affairs of the high cou­rt. The registrar of the Su­­preme Court later rais­­ed multiple objections to the petitions.

The judges separately met senior lawyers Faisal Siddiqui and Abid Zubairi on Monday and Tuesday.

Advocate Siddiqui had earlier argued on their behalf during the hearing of a petition filed against the transfer of incumbent Chief Justice Sardar Moh­ammad Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and Justice Mohammad Asif.

He was initially enga­ged by former Islamabad High Court Bar Assoc­ia­tion (IHCBA) president Riasat Ali Azad to defend the five judges’ case, but that petition was withdrawn by his successor. Mr Azad, however, retained him as counsel while filing another identical petition through four former IHCBA presidents.

The Supreme Court’s Registrar Office on Monday raised administrative objections to the petitions separately filed by the five sitting IHC judges. The judges had appeared in person before the Supreme Court last Friday to institute constitutional petitions challenging the exercise of administrative powers by the IHC chief justice.

In their pleas, the judges sought a declaration that the administrative powers of the IHC chief justice could not be exercised in a manner that undermined judicial authority. They argued that once a bench was seized of a matter, the CJ-IHC was not empowered to transfer cases, reconstitute the bench, or exclude available judges from the roster at will.

According to the objections, the petitioners invoked the apex court’s original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but the grievances raised were of an individual nature and thus not maintainable in view of the 1998 Zulfiqar Mehdi case. In that judgement, the Supreme Court had held that Article 184(3) could not be pressed into service for redress of personal grievances.

Published in Dawn, September 24th, 2025