ISLAMABAD: While declaring the July 2025 order in the Aafia Siddiqui case was made without jurisdiction, a larger bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in a detailed judgement reaffirmed on Monday that the chief justice was the sole “master of the roster” and “adherence to the roster system is not a matter of administrative convenience but a constitutional requirement”.

The larger bench held that the proceedings conducted on July 21, 2025, in the Aafia case were undertaken by a forum that had not been “lawfully constituted” under the approved roster.

The detailed judgement, authored by Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, emphasised the roster system was designed to safeguard the rule of law and maintain orderly administration of justice within the high court.

Consequently, the IHC larger bench comprising Justices Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Khadim Hussain Soomro and Muhammad Azam Khan besides Justice Minhas recalled the order issued by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan in the Aafia case on July 21, 2025, for being issued by a forum that was “not constituted lawfully”.

Recalls July 2025 order in Aafia case by a forum, which was ‘not legally constituted’

Justice Khan had issued contempt notices to the premier and the federal cabinet in July last year over non-compliance with the court’s directions in a petition filed by Dr Fowzia Siddiqui seeking the release of Dr Aafia from a US prison.

However, the registrar’s office did not execute the notices because the judge was not included in the duty roster, approved by the chief justice. Later, the registrar recommended that a larger bench should address questions concerning the validity of the July hearing.

The central issue identified was that Justice Khan’s bench was not authorised to hear cases on July 21. The weekly roster approved by the chief justice had not assigned him any bench duties that day, and the official summer vacation roster also listed him as being ‘on leave’.

The larger bench observed that Justice Khan’s leave schedule had been publicly notified in advance, and in line with that schedule, his name was excluded from the weekly roster prepared by the deputy registrar (judicial) and approved by the IHC chief justice. Yet the judge held court on July 21, heard cases, and issued directions, including those for the initiation of contempt proceedings against members of the federal government, the bench noted.

Under the high court rules, it observed, the constitution of benches fell within the exclusive domain of the chief justice.

The detailed judgement recalled that in view of institutional and constitutional implications, the matter was referred to the IHC chief justice for the constitution of a larger bench to settle questions arising from the July 21 order. The larger bench then framed three key questions for determination: whether a bench existed in law merely because judges were present or only upon roster’s approval by the CJ; whether a judge could self-assign or assume jurisdiction in a case; and whether the CJ is legally obliged to obtain consent of a bench before consolidating identical petitions and reallocating them for hearing.

Published in Dawn, February 24th, 2026