ISLAMABAD: The federal government on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to dismiss identical petitions challenging the transfer of judges from various high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
A five-member Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard petitions filed by IHC judges contesting the transfer of judges to the IHC as well as seniority disputes.
On Tuesday, Attorney General (AG) Mansoor Usman Awan argued that the petitions should be dismissed on merit, asserting that no fresh appointments were required for the transfers and that retaking oath was unnecessary. He cited Supreme Court rulings that seniority begins from the date of appointment.
Justice Shakeel Ahmed questioned why the law secretary had clarified that transferred judges need not retake oath. The AG responded that the clarification aimed to prevent ambiguity in the notification after advance approval. He maintained that IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq independently determined seniority and that no objections were raised by the chief justices or registrars of the four high courts regarding the transfers.
Justice Mazhar noted that the petitioners’ lawyers had not mentioned the representation or decision by the IHC chief justice. When asked about the judges’ request in their representation, the AG stated they sought seniority determination after re-oath upon transfer.
The AG emphasized that Article 200 outlines the transfer procedure, with the judiciary—not the executive—holding veto power. He added that all chief justices consented to the transfers. However, Justice Panhwar noted that no chief justice was consulted on seniority, to which the AG replied that it fell under the IHC chief justice’s jurisdiction.
Justice Afghan observed that the Constitution lacks clarity on transfer principles and questioned why Justice Dogar, 15th in seniority at LHC, became the top judge at IHC. He also asked whether the IHC chief justice had authority to decide seniority for transferred judges. The AG affirmed this authority.
The AG argued that Article 200 remains valid post-18th Amendment, rejecting claims of its redundancy after Article 175-A. Justice Shakeel Ahmed noted that the transfer notification did not cite public interest, a requirement under Article 200.
Justice Mazhar remarked that judicial transfers have safeguards, while Justice Afghan questioned whether Articles 200(1) and 200(2) should be read together, probing if transfers under subsection 2 are temporary. The AG clarified that temporary transfers entail additional allowances, whereas permanent ones do not.
The bench summoned minutes of the Judicial Commission’s January 17 and February 10 meetings. After the AG concluded his arguments, Munir A Malik, counsel for the petitioners, will present rebuttal arguments at the next hearing. Faisal Siddiqui, representing the Sindh Bar Association, will also argue. The hearing was adjourned until May 29.
