SC rules in favour of IHC judges’ transfer, disposes of opposing petitions
smartcybers786@gmail.com 
A policeman walks past the Supreme Court building in Islamabad. — AFP/File
#rules #favour #IHC #judges #transfer #disposes #opposing #petitions
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday ruled in favor of transferring judges to Islamabad High Court (IHC) and rejected several petitions filed against it.
The decision was announced by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, who headed the five IHC judges, Karachi Bar Association (KBA), a five -member constitutional bench hearing by the IHC Bar Association, and against the Lahore High Court against Justice Sarfarz Dougar, Judge, Dusar, Judge. Balochistan High Court The three judges were among those who moved to the IHC.
The bench also includes Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, Justice Salahuddin Panwar and Justice Shakeel Ahmed.
In February, five IHC judges transferred Justice Sarfraz Dogar to the SC under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution, along with the transfer of IHC’s acting Chief Justice as well as the High Court judges. The petition was filed by Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jehangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz.
IHC judges urged the Apex court to declare that the president did not have made an unprecedented and relentless discretion to transfer the judges from one High Court to another under Article 200 (1) of the Constitution, without any public interest, and in a manner that separated the independence of the judiciary.
His petition also prayed to the Supreme Court to declare that according to the law announced by the Advanced Court in the case of Aslam Owan and Farrukh Irfan, the interfaith sanity of the respondents would be determined from the date when they would take oath as IHC judge and would result in a lower list of applicants.
The Supreme Court had raised the matter on April 17 and has since made 19 hearings. Today, in its 3-2 majority decision, the Supreme Court rejected several petitions with Justice, Justice Hassan and Justice Panwar.
However, Justice Afghan and Justice Ahmed allowed the petitions and put the report of the transfer of the judges aside.
In its 5 -page verdict, the Apex Court highlighted that under Article 175A of the President of Pakistan for the transfer of a High Court judge and Article 175A of the Constitution, the provisions included in the Apex Court and the high courts were not two separate clauses and each other.
The short order states, “The transfer of a judge by the president of Pakistan through Article 200 (permanently or temporarily) of the Constitution cannot be considered as a new appointment.”
He noted, “There is no powers to transfer the president through anyone other than the framers of the Constitution.
With regard to the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010, the court ruled that it only stated that the IHC would consist of a Chief Justice and twelve judges who should be appointed from the provinces and other areas, and that “appointment of judges is only Germany, nor is it a mere appointment of IHC. “
“Section 3 of the aforementioned Act cannot reject/reject/reject the constitutional mandate, nor can it control, or retrieve the transfer powers to the president of Pakistan under Article 200 of the Constitution, or withdraw it.”
Highlighting that the powers of the president were regularly made under Article 200 and they were subjected to consultation with the CJP, they “did not compromise the judiciary for a sensible reason that the decision to accept or reject the judiciary was exclusively in the hands of the judiciary”.
“We are surprised that under normal circumstances, the decision regarding interfaith disputes or differences between the High Court judges is administratively in the domain of the Chief Justice of this High Court, but here the matter is related to the transfer of judges from other high courts to IHC.
“Thus, before the transfer of three judges under Article 200 of the Constitution, the issue of seniority within the current power of one and the same High Court is not a cohesive relationship, but the transition is between judges and judges who have already existed before the transfer.”
Partially, the matter with the President of Pakistan, without disturbing the transfer notification, to determine the seniority after examining/examining/examining the record of the transfer judges, which includes the question that the exchange is on a permanent or temporary basis, is based on the order of justice.
