Petitioner judges tell Supreme Court they are left with no choice except to do institutional laundry in public Cause list of five judges of IHC cancelled IHC adjourns Imran, Bushra petitions seeking hearing in Toshakhana II case.
ISLAMABAD –
At least five judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday asked the Supreme Court of Pakistan to declare that administrative powers could not be “deployed to undermine or trump the judicial powers” of the judges of the high court.
The five judges including Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz in person filed separate petitions, but the subject in all the petition was the same.
Six judges of the IHC including Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz on May 10, 2023 wrote a letter the former Chief Justice of Pakistan Umar Ata Bandial against the alleged “interference” and “intimidation” by the “operatives of intelligence agencies.” On 25-03-24 they approached the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) regarding the same matter.
In February, this year, these judges, minus Justice Arbab, approached the Supreme Court against the transfer of judges from three provincial High Courts – Lahore, Sindh and Balochistan, and their seniority position also filed a petition against the incumbent Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar.
The petitioner judges said that they found it loathsome to do institutional laundry in public, but are out of options. They have no other remedy but to transform themselves into litigants and publicly seek remedies from the Supreme Court. They have engaged in intra-institutional consultation informally; they have indulged in formal correspondence and letter-writing; and they have met successive Chief Justices and sought their indulgence. But to no avail. They wrote that Chief Justice Dogar from the date of assuming charge as the Chief Justice has consistently used administrative powers in violation of settled principles of comity of judges and judicial independence to render the Petitioner judges, who challenged his transfer and seniority, dysfunctional. The Chief Justice in complete disregard of the settled law by the Supreme Court, has repeatedly used administrative powers (i) to restrict some of the Petitioner judges from exercising their judicial functions and powers and (ii) to interfere with the discharge of their judicial functions.
They said that under Chief Justice Dogar’s watch, the office has refused to issue cause lists in breach of judicial orders and has transferred part heard matters from the docket of one court to another without such powers vesting in the Chief Justice. Chief Justice Dogar has used his administrative power to reconstitute benches and transfer cases being adjudicated from the bench seized of them to another.
They added that Chief Justice Dogar continues to use his power to issue the roster of sitting judges to render senior judges dysfunctional. Chief Justice Dogar has constituted divisional benches headed by junior judges and has relieved senior judges of such responsibility, including the Senior Puisne judge, who is no longer part of any divisional bench.
They asked the apex court to declare that a chief justice of the high court was “not authorised to constitute benches or transfer cases” once a high court bench had been assigned a case. Moreover, the petitions sought the declaration that the chief justice of a high court “cannot exclude available judges from the roster, at will, and use the power to issue a roster to oust judges from performing judicial functions”. The SC was also urged to declare “that the constitution of benches, transfer of cases and issuance of roster can only be done in accordance with the rules adopted by the entirety of the High Court under Article 202 (rules of procedure), read with Article 192(1) (constitution of high court) of the Constitution”.
The petitioners also asked the apex court to declare that the “decision-making” with respect to the constitution of benches, issuance of roster and transfer of cases could not “solely rest in the hands of the chief justice”. “Declare that the ‘Doctrine of the Master of the Roster’ has definitely been set aside in Supreme Court decisions,” the petitions read.
The petitions further sought the declaration that formation of IHC’s administration committees through notifications dated February 3 and July 15 and all the actions taken by them “suffer from mala fide in law and are illegal”. They asked the court to set aside these notifications and all actions taken by the administration committees constituted under them for “being illegal and coram non judice”.
Moreover, they stated: “Declare that the adoption and approval of Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025, by the illegally constituted administration committee, and its notification without prior approval of the high court is in breach of Article 192(1) and Article 202 of the Constitution, and its subsequent endorsement in September, are illegal and of no legal effect.”
The judges further stated in their prayers that the SC “direct the IHC to provide effective supervision and oversight” over the functioning of the district judiciary, as mandated by the Constitution under Article 203, which states that each high court shall supervise and control all courts subordinate to it. The petitioner asked the SC to “declare that a high court cannot issue a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution to itself.” Article 199 pertains to the jurisdiction of a high court. They continued: “A Division Bench of high court is neither vested with jurisdiction to sit in appeal over interlocutory orders of a single bench nor can assume control over the proceedings of a single bench as if it is an inferior court or tribunal.” The petitioners requested the SC to declare that a high court judge can only be “restrained from working from performing judicial duties under Article 209 and a writ of quo warranto seeking the removal of a judge from office is not maintainable.”
Meanwhile, the cause lists of the Islamabad High Court were cancelled due to the unavailability of five judges.
According to officials, the cause list of the court of Justice Saman Riffat Imtiaz was cancelled, while the division bench comprising Justice Babar Sattar and Justice Ijaz Ishaq Khan also did not hear tax-related cases. Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir is already on leave from September 16 to 19. Similarly Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro is also on leave from September 16 to 19. The hearings of several cases have been postponed due to the unavailability of five judges of the High Court.
PTI FOUNDER, BUSHRA BIBI’S PLEAS
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday adjourned the hearing on petitions seeking an early hearing of the acquittal petitions of PTI founder and his wife Bushra Bibi in the Toshakhana II case. Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas conducted the hearing wherein Barrister Salman Safdar, Ali Bukhari and others appeared in the court on behalf of the petitioners. PTI founder’s lawyer Barrister Salman Safdar took the stand that the cases have been going on rapidly for a month, the verdict is expected to be announced on September 22, so the acquittal petitions should be scheduled on the same day. He said that all our hopes are from the High Court. Barrister Salman Safdar said that NAB and the police have already prosecuted, now the FIA has come. He said that the bail decision also stated that the crime is not committed, so how is the trial going on? He further said that if the applications are not scheduled on September 22, the trial court will pronounce the decision. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas remarked that they will decide after seeing the roster and added they already have several cases scheduled for Monday, but they will see when these applications can be filed. The court adjourned further proceedings and adjourned the case until the next hearing.
