- The federal government presents a seven -page response to the Supreme Court.
- He says that the transfer in any way undermines judicial independence.
- The Constitution does not mention the provision for temporary transfers. “
Islamabad: The federal government presented on Wednesday its response in the Supreme Court on the case of seniority of the judges, urging the Court of Apex to dismiss all the requests that challenge the appointments of judges, including those of the Superior Court of Islamabad.
“The requests for the petitioners refuse in all positions and it is claimed that the process initiated by virtue of article 200 for the transfer of Punjab judges, Sindh and the Superior Court of Baluchistan demonstrate and deliver transparency and in no way undermine the independence of the judicial,” said the center in its seven -page response, a copy of which it is available with GEO news.
A five -member bank, headed by Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar and including Judges Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Salahuddin Panhwar and Shakeel Ahmed collected requests presented by five IHC judges, the Karachi Bar Association (KBA) and the IHC bars, among others.
In February, five IHC judges transferred the SC against the appointment of Judge Sarfraz Dogar as the president of the Supreme Court of IHC, as well as the transfer of judges of three courts higher than the top court of the capital.
Five IHC judges: Judge Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Judge Babar Sattar, Judge Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Judge Saman Riffat Imtiaz, presented a request in the Superior Court under article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
IHC judges urged the Apex Court to declare that the President does not have discretion without restrictions and unbridled to transfer the judges of one court superior to another, by virtue of article 200 (1) of the Constitution, without a manifest public interest, and in a way that hinders the principles of the independence of Judiciary and the separation of Powers.
The five IHC jurists also prayed to the Apex court to declare that, in line with the established law, pronounced by the highest court in the case of Asm Awan and Farrukh Irfan, the antiquity between respondents will be determined from the date on which the IHC judges take and, consequently, they will be lower in the list of antiquities of the requests.
In its response presented today, the Federal Government said that the judges are not obliged to provide a new oath after a transfer, since a transfer under article 200 does not constitute a new appointment.
“Article 200 (1) deals with the president's power to transfer to the judges from one superior court to another, thus attributing a clear permanence to the transfer,” he said.
The argument that transfers are temporary was also rejected, and the Government affirms that the Constitution does not mention any provision for temporary transfers of judges.
“Without use of the term” for said period “or” during the period “in clause (1) of article 200 it clearly reflects that the transfer by virtue of the same, unlike the clause (3), not in the nature of a temporary agreement. The permanence of the transfer of the transfer under article 200 (1) is also evident due to the fact that the fact of sending the judge of the transfer to his main court. complete under article 200 (1) again.
The Federal Government stressed that before initiating the process under article 200 (1), the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) on January 1, 2025 appointed two additional judges for the IHC while leaving three vacancies.
According to the Federal Government, the Ministry of Law had sent a summary for the transfer of the judges to the Superior Court of Islamabad on January 28. He stressed that the president's role in such transfers is limited, and the true authority falls to the president of the president of Pakistan (CJP).
Therefore, the Government requested the dismissal of all requests presented against the appointments of judges, including those of the Superior Court of Islamabad.
Last audience
In the previous hearing, the lawyer of the judges of IHC, Muneer to Malik, argued that the matter must be interpreted in the light of article 175, since it refers to judicial transfers, the federalism and the role of the administrative committees.
Given this, the SC judge, Mazhar, declared that the transfers of the judges fall in article 200 and that the court cannot treat judges as public officials.
The judge described the process of four levels of transfer of a judge: consent of the judge that is transferred, the main judges of the Superior Courts of Shipping and Reception, and the final approval of the President of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, after which the President issues the official notification.
He asked the lawyer if the objection was on the transfer or seniority list, to which Malik replied: “Both.”
Judge Mazhar also commented on the practice of adding a new language to the Constitution, citing criticism of article 62 (1) (f) life disqualification verdict, which was then modified after the review.
Judge Afghan asked: “Why were the new judges designated from the same provinces instead of transferring the existing ones when vacancies were available?”
He also questioned whether an oath specifically mentions to which superior court the judge is swearing loyalty. Malik replied that the draft of the oath specifies the territory of the capital of Islamabad in the case of appointments with IHC.
Before postponing the procedures until April 17, the Court issued notices to the President of the Superior Court of Islamabad Sarfraz Dogar, Judge Khadim Hussain, Judge Muhammad Asif, the Judicial Commission and the Attorney General of Pakistan in response to the requests presented by the five judges.
