ISLAMABAD: Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan on Tuesday told the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench hearing judges’ seniority dispute that the notification in which law secretary stated that judges would not require fresh oath after they were transferred to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) was meant to remove any ambiguity on oath.

The explanation came after a member of the five-judge constitutional bench, Justice Shakeel Ahmed, asked whether the law secretary was “competent to clarify” in the notification that judges would not be required to take a fresh oath on their posting to the IHC.

The AGP also explained that no question was raised on the judges’ transfer in the report of the chief justices and registrar of four high courts. He said the then chief justice of the IHC Aamir Farooq was completely independent in determining their seniority while deciding the representation of five IHC judges.

At this, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, who was heading the constitutional bench, observed that the counsel representing the petitioner judges did not apprise the court about the representation moved by the judges the high court and its decision. The attorney general explained that the IHC judges had requested for determination of seniority upon taking the oath.

Justice Aamir had complete independence in determining IHC judges’ seniority while deciding their representation, SC told

Also, Justice Shakeel Ahmed observed that none of the counsel earlier mentioned the representation and subsequent decision by the then CJ of the high court.

The AGP said Article 200 of the Constitution explained the method of transfer of the judges, whereas the power of veto to question any such transfer was with the judiciary and not with the executive. At the time of transfer, all the chief justices had expressed their willingness over the transfer, he added.

But Justice Salahuddin Panwhar observed that an opinion of chief justice on the issue of seniority was never sought.

During the hearing, the bench raised questions whether the authority of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) could be made ineffective by transferring judges on a permanent basis, also asking about any principles for judges’ transfer.

Mr Awar reminded the court that Article 200 could not be made ineffective. Even when the 18th Amendment was made, Article 200 was not changed, he said. The AGP further said, in his opinion, setting a time for transferred judges was like adding new words to the Constitution.

When Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan said that the minutes of JCP meeting held on Feb 10 should be provided, the AGP explained that two additional judges were appointed to the IHC in Jan 17 meeting of the commission whereas in the subsequent JCP meeting held on Feb 10, IHC CJ Aamir Farooq was elevated to the Supreme Court.

Justice Afghan asked if acting IHC CJ Sardar Sarfaraz Dogar, too, was among those on the list to be considered for elevation by the JCP on Feb 10, the AGP replied in affirmative.

The AGP requested the court to reject petitions of the PTI founder and others by declaring them as inadmissible. On the other hand, the KP Advocate General said he supported the arguments advanced by lawyers on behalf of the petitioners.

The AGP took the position that a judge was brought for a limited time only when the number of permanent judges of the high court was complete.

Published in Dawn, May 28th, 2025