ISLAMABAD – The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday rejected the petitions challenging the recent transfers of judges, declaring the transfers constitutional in a majority verdict.
The ruling was announced by a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, which had earlier reserved its judgment in the case.
The bench delivered the decision with a 2-1 majority, and affirmed the legality of the judicial transfers.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, delivering the verdict on behalf of the bench, held that the objections raised against the transfers did not hold constitutional merit. The court further ruled that Justice Sarfraz Dogar would continue to serve as the acting chief justice of the Islamabad High Court.
The case had drawn attention from the legal circles and political commentators, with several petitioners arguing that the transfers were made without due process and transparency.
However, the court found no constitutional violations in the administrative decisions taken regarding the judiciary.
Earlier, the top court had raised serious concerns regarding the recent transfers of judges in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) while hearing the case in this regard.
Senior lawyer Hamid Khan had argued that the process of transferring judges from the high courts required the careful consideration and highlighted the unusual haste shown in transferring judges within the Islamabad High Court.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that, “In India, the consent of the judge is not required for transfers; the decision is made in consultation with the Chief Justice. However, in our jurisdiction, seeking the judge’s consent is a constitutional requirement.”
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan noted that India’s high court judges belong to a unified cadre system, whereas in Pakistan, there is no unified seniority list for high court judges.
Justice Shakeel Ahmad added that in India, all high court judges are listed under one seniority framework.
Hamid Khan contended that there was no meaningful consultation by the Chief Justice of Pakistan in the judge transfer process. Justice Naeem Afghan responded, clarifying that the matter concerns consent rather than consultation alone.
Hamid Khan further alleged that the real objective was to bring in Justice Sarfraz Dogar, while the transfer of the other two judges was merely a cover. “Article 200 was misused to abuse authority,” he asserted.
Advocate Idrees Ashraf, representing the founder of PTI, pointed out that the official notification of the judge transfers did not specify any duration. He argued that transferring judges without clearly defined terms could create divisions within the existing high court judiciary.
“There must be no discrimination among judges,” he added.
IHCBA supports petition on judges’ seniority issue before SC
