• Justice Dogar’s clarifies he was only ‘trying to guide’ the advocate, but clarification fails to pacify his critics
• WAF, Lahore, Karachi and Balochistan bars back Imaan Mazari-Hazir

ISLAMABAD: The legal fraternity has criticised remarks attributed to Islamabad High Court (IHC) Chief Justice (CJ) Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, during an ‘unbecoming’ exchange with Advocate Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir, with some bars even calling for his removal from judicial office.

While hearing a separate matter on Friday, Justice Dogar sought to clarify his remarks from a day earlier, where he reportedly warned the lawyer of consequences if “he got a hold of her”.

However, Ms Mazari-Hazir accused the top judge of “passing sexist remarks”.

The controversy stems from an exchange between the IHC CJ and Advocate Mazari-Hazir during the hearing of a plea seeking the removal of her client, Mahrang Baloch, from the Exit Control List.

At the hearing, CJ Dogar remarked that the lawyer often portrayed him as a dictator, to which Mazari replied that she was only fulfilling her professional duty.

The exchange grew tense when the CJ warned her of contempt proceedings, and Mazari responded that she was prepared to face such action if the court deemed it necessary. CJ Dogar then turned to her husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, reportedly saying: “Hadi sahib, make her understand; if I get hold of her someday...”

However, on Friday, during the hearing of a separate case, CJ Dogar addressed the matter, saying he did not say anything along the lines of “getting hold of her”.

“I did not say that I will get hold of her, [but] this [reported remark] is being circulated since yesterday. Hadi sahib was standing [there], so I asked him to take her away or I would initiate contempt of court proceedings.”

CJ Dogar said Ms Mazari-Hazir was “like a daughter” to him, and he was only trying to explain things to her.

“I was explaining to her just as (I would) to a child, but she was not understanding. She was repeatedly mentioning fundamental rights. Does this court not have any fundamental rights,” he observed.

Later, Mr Chattha maintained in a post on X that the judge had, in fact, made the reported remarks.

Following the clarification, Ms Mazari-Hazir criticised him for making “sexist” remarks.

“[Yesterday], the chief justice misbehaved, harassed me at my workplace and threatened me openly in the court … Today again, he is passing sexist remarks.”

She asserted that she was neither his daughter nor a child. “I am a professional lawyer”.

Condemnations

The episode did not sit well with lawyers’ bodies and bar associations, a number of whom issued statements condemning the IHC CJ’s behaviour, with some even suggesting that he be removed from his office.

The Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) strongly condemned the exchange, saying that lawyers were “officer[s] of the court” and their respect and dignity should be prioritised, just like those of respected judges.

It added that Justice Dogar’s “behaviour is a gross violation of the judge’s code of conduct and it is immensely important to keep any such judge away from court proceedings”.

The LHCBA urged the Supreme Judicial Council — the highest forum responsible for disciplinary proceedings against judges of the superior judiciary — to remove Justice Dogar from his post.

This demand was echoed by the Balochis-tan Bar Council as well, while the Karachi Bar Association (KBA) strongly condem-ned the highly inappropriate conduct” of Justice Dogar.

Expressing solidarity with Ms Mazari-Hazir, the KBA urged the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, Supreme Court and Pakistan Bar Council to take notice of the incident.

“The judiciary must remain above personal remarks and coercive conduct; respect between bar and bench must always be mutual to protect the integrity of our justice system,” the KBA stated.

The Women’s Action Forum (WAF) was also outraged by the judge’s reported remarks, and condemned the “highly objectionable patriarchal misogynist anti-women remarks and behaviour ... patronising language employed in addressing and instructing the lawyer’s spouse...”.

Published in Dawn, September 13th, 2025