The Supreme Court (SC) Thursday adjourned until April 22 the hearing of identical petitions challenging the transfer of judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), directing all advocate generals (AGs) to consult their respective high courts and submit written responses, including seniority lists.
A five-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, is hearing the petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution by five IHC judges: Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Justice Saman Riffat Imtiaz.
The judges have challenged the transfer of Justice Sarfaraz Dogar from the Lahore High Court, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro from the Sindh High Court, and Justice Muhammad Asif from the Balochistan High Court to the IHC.
On Thursday, senior lawyer Munir A. Malik, representing five IHC judges, informed the SC that the federal government had submitted its response regarding the judges’ transfer but failed to include key documents, including records of consent from relevant judicial authorities.
He argued that no consent documents from the Lahore High Court, IHC, or the chief justice of Pakistan were submitted as required for the lawful transfer of judges.
In its written order, the SC noted that Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Usman Awan had assured the bench that all relevant records would be submitted in due course.
The court also recorded that, according to the attorney general, the three transferred judges declined legal representation and conveyed their willingness to accept any decision rendered by the constitutional bench.
It was further noted that Munir A. Malik had earlier informed the court about a scheduled Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) meeting on April 18. To accommodate this, the hearing was moved to April 17. The AGP, however, confirmed that Thursday’s JCP meeting would only deliberate on the nomination of two new judges to constitutional benches.
The SC expressed concern over the delay in appointing a permanent chief justice to the IHC, noting that no meeting had yet been scheduled for the purpose. In its order, the constitutional bench stated that it had directly inquired about the timeline for the appointment, to which AGP Mansoor Usman Awan responded that no meeting had been planned so far. The AGP informed the court that a meeting of the JCP was scheduled for May 2 to consider appointments of chief justices for the Peshawar and Balochistan high courts. Citing clauses 9 and 10 of the Judicial Commission Rules 2024, he explained that a 15-day prior notice was required to convene a meeting, mainly to invite nominations in accordance with the rules.
Meanwhile, the court dismissed a petition filed by the Islamabad High Court Bar Association after Advocate-on-Record Anees Shehzad informed the bench of the Bar’s intention to withdraw the case. However, counsel for the Association, Faisal Siddiqui, opposed the withdrawal, stating that the petition was submitted without his instruction and was being withdrawn with “malicious intent”.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted that the Bar’s Executive Committee had passed a resolution to withdraw the petition, also observing that the petition was initially filed without the committee’s formal approval. Siddiqui, while objecting to the manner of withdrawal, did not oppose it formally.
Later, the court formally dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
During the hearing, the court was informed that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial government supported the constitutional petition filed by five IHC judges challenging recent judicial transfers. When asked by Justice Mazhar whether any formal response had been submitted, the Additional Advocate General of KP admitted that no written reply had yet been filed. The court directed him to submit a response and adjourned proceedings until April 22 at 11:30 a.m.
