Apex court issues notices on petitions challenging new IHC judges’ seniority list
smartcybers786@gmail.com 
A man uses his mobile phone as he walks past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building in Islamabad on May 13, 2023. — AFP
#Apex #court #issues #notices #petitions #challenging #IHC #judges #seniority #list
ISLAMABAD: A five -member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court on Monday submitted notices to the Islamabad High Court judges and others in connection with the transfer of recent judges to the ISC and the consequent changes to the judicial seniority.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, headed by Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, Justice Salahuddin Panwar and Justice Shakeel Ahmed, five IHC Bar Association, Karachi Bar Association (Karachi Bar Association) and Ish Akhil Association (Karachi Bar Association) and IHC Bar Association.
After hearing the preliminary arguments, the SC bench said: “The points needed to be considered, notices should be issued to the respondents in all the above mentioned cases. The notice should also be issued.
In February this year, five IHC judges also transferred the SC to Justice Sarfraz Dogar to the IHC’s acting Chief Justice as well as the transfer of three high courts to the capital’s High Court.
Five IHC judges – Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jehangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Rift Imtiaz – filed a petition in the High Court under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
IHC judges urged the Apex court to declare that the president did not have made an indiscriminate and restless discretion to transfer judges from one High Court to another without the public interest, without the public interest, and in a manner that separated from the principles and powers of the judiciary.
Five IHC jurists also prayed to the Supreme Court to declare that according to the law announced by the High Court in the case of Aslam Owan and Firkh Irfan, the international of the respondents will be determined from the date of the number of IHC judges.
At the beginning of today’s hearing, IHC judges’ lawyer Munir argued that the matter should be interpreted in the light of Article 175, as it fears the role of judicial transfer, federalism and management committees.
On this, SC’s Justice Mazhar said that the transfer of judges comes under Article 200 and the court cannot understand the judges as government employees.
The judge outline the four -level process of transfer of the judge: final approval from both the Chief Justice of both sending and receiving the transfer of the judge, sending and receiving the high courts, and the Chief Justice of Pakistan, after which the official notification was issued to the president.
He asked if this objection was in the list of transfer or seniority, to which Malik replied: “Both.”
Justice Mazhar further commented on the process of adding a new language to the Constitution, citing criticism of Article 62 (1) (F) Lifetime disqualification decision, which was later changed to review.
Justice Afghan asked: “Why was the new judges not appointed from the same provinces instead of transferring the current people when the vacancies are available?”
He also raised the question whether in an oath it is specifically mentioned as to which the judge is pledging allegiance to the High Court. Malik replied that the Islamabad Capital Territory has been explained in the draft of the oath.
Prior to the adjoining proceedings till April 17, the court issued notices to the Attorney General of Pakistan in response to the petitions of Acting Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court, Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain, Justice Muhammad Asif, Judicial Commission, and Five Judges.
