ISLAMABAD: The top office-bearer of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) has sought recusal of a judge citing concerns over the “appearance of bias” stemming from the judge’s prior legal representation by a counsel now opposing him in another case.

IHCBA General Secretary Chaudhry Manzoor Ahmed Jajja filed an application before Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan requesting him to recuse himself from hearing the enforcement petition of Frontier Holdings Limited against the Petroleum Exploration (Private) Limited requesting the judge’s recusal since the counsel for the petitioner represented five judges including Justice Ejaz Ishaq in the seniority case.

The judge on the other hand dismissed the application.

The Supreme Court last week rejected the request of five judges - Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz - against the seniority of the IHC judges following transfer of three judges including acting IHC chief justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar from other high courts.

The application contended that the respondent, Petroleum Exploration (Pvt.) Limited, in Enforcement Petition No. 01/2025 (Frontier Holdings Limited etc. vs. Petroleum Exploration (Pvt.) Limited), has formally requested that the presiding judge recuse himself from the case.

The application argues that a reasonable apprehension of bias exists because the honourable judge was represented in separate constitutional litigation (Constitution Petition No. 22 of 2025) by Zainab Janjua Advocate.

It pointed out that Ms Janjua’s name was in the short order of the apex court issued in the judge’s seniority case.

“This raises a legitimate apprehension that the Hon’ble Judge may be unable to maintain absolute neutrality, or at least that the appearance of neutrality is compromised,” the application said.

Crucially, Janjua is simultaneously representing the petitioner (Frontier Holdings) against the applicant (Petroleum Exploration) in this very enforcement petition.

The applicant contends this dual role creates an “objective appearance” that judicial neutrality could be compromised, even in the absence of proven actual bias.

The application draws a direct parallel to R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte, where the UK House of Lords set aside its own judgement because one Lord had an undisclosed link to Amnesty International, an intervener. The Lords held that apparent bias invalidated the decision.

The applicant also cited reference of a case of the Lahore High Court observed that the “appearance of bias is regarded as seriously by the court as is actual bias,” emphasising that even upright motives are insufficient if the public reasonably perceives a compromised process.

The applicant requested the judge, “in the interest of justice, fair play, and most importantly in consonance with the applicant’s inviolable right of due process of law,” to recuse himself voluntarily.

Published in Dawn, June 26th, 2025