By Staff Reporter
ISLAMABAD : Five judges of the Islamabad High Court filed separate petitions with Pakistan’s Supreme Court on Friday, seeking declarations that would curb the administrative powers of the high court’s chief justice and address what they described as misuse of authority in bench formations, case transfers and roster issuances.
The petitions, submitted by Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Saman Rafat Imtiaz and Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, named the Islamabad High Court, its Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and the Federation of Pakistan as respondents. Filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in matters of public importance involving fundamental rights, the actions underscored longstanding tensions within the judiciary.
In their filings, the judges urged the Supreme Court to declare that administrative powers could not be “deployed to undermine or trump the judicial powers” of high court judges. They further sought a ruling that a chief justice of a high court is “not authorised to constitute benches or transfer cases” once a bench has been assigned a case.
The petitions also called for declarations that the chief justice “cannot exclude available judges from the roster, at will, and use the power to issue a roster to oust judges from performing judicial functions.” They emphasized that the constitution of benches, transfer of cases and issuance of rosters “can only be done in accordance with the rules adopted by the entirety of the High Court under Article 202 (rules of procedure), read with Article 192(1) (constitution of high court) of the Constitution.”
Additionally, the judges asked the court to declare that “decision-making” on these matters could not “solely rest in the hands of the chief justice.” The petitions stated: “Declare that the ‘Doctrine of the Master of the Roster’ has definitely been set aside in Supreme Court decisions.”
The filings targeted specific administrative actions, seeking to invalidate the formation of IHC administration committees through notifications dated February 3 and July 15, along with all actions taken by them, for “suffer from mala fide in law and are illegal.” They requested that these notifications and actions be set aside for “being illegal and coram non judice.”
The petitions further declared that the “adoption and approval of Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025, by the illegally constituted administration committee, and its notification without prior approval of the high court is in breach of Article 192(1) and Article 202 of the Constitution, and its subsequent endorsement in September, are illegal and of no legal effect.”
Among other requests, the judges asked the Supreme Court to direct the IHC to “provide effective supervision and oversight” over the district judiciary, as required under Article 203 of the Constitution, which mandates that each high court shall supervise and control all courts subordinate to it.
They also sought declarations that a high court “cannot issue a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution to itself,” and that a division bench “is neither vested with jurisdiction to sit in appeal over interlocutory orders of a single bench nor can assume control over the proceedings of a single bench as if it is an inferior court or tribunal.”
The petitions asserted that a high court judge can only be “restrained from working from performing judicial duties under Article 209,” which empowers the Supreme Judicial Council to inquire into judges’ conduct, and that “a writ of quo warranto seeking the removal of a judge from office is not maintainable.” They concluded by requesting the Supreme Court to “grant any other relief deemed appropriate in the circumstances of this case.”
Friday’s petitions come amid a protracted rift within the Islamabad High Court that has exposed divisions over judicial independence, administrative control and appointments. The tensions gained public attention with Justice Dogar’s elevation as chief justice earlier this year.
It all started in March last year, when the five petitioning judges, along with Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, wrote a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council accusing Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus of interfering in judicial affairs, including through abduction and torture of relatives and secret surveillance in homes.
That letter prompted widespread calls for an investigation. Then-Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa convened a full court meeting of the Supreme Court. After meeting with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on March 28, they formed a commission to probe the allegations, but its appointed head, former Chief Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, recused himself. The Supreme Court then took suo motu notice.
In November 2024, the Supreme Judicial Council, under current Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, considered options on the letter and agreed to expand consultations, noting that the judges’ code of conduct applies to institutional heads as well.
The passage of the 26th Constitutional Amendment in October 2024 introduced judicial changes, including new rules by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan allowing chief justice appointments from among the five senior-most judges, bypassing strict seniority.
Rumors in December 2024 suggested plans to bring a judge from the Lahore High Court to lead the IHC after the then-chief justice’s elevation. In February 2025, the five judges formally opposed the potential transfer of then-Lahore High Court Justice Dogar, warning in a letter to Chief Justice Afridi and others that it would violate constitutional procedures and judicial norms.
Justice Dogar, sworn in at the Lahore High Court in June 2015, was transferred to the IHC on February 1, along with two others, altering the seniority list. Justice Kayani, previously the senior puisne judge, was removed from the top decision-making committee and stripped of his role as inspection judge of special courts.
The IHC notified Justice Dogar as senior puisne judge and revised the seniority list: Justice Dogar, Justice Kayani, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Jahangiri, Justice Sattar, Justice Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Justice Saman Imtiaz, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro, Justice Mohammad Azam Khan, Justice Mohammad Asif and Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas.
The five judges sent a representation against their lowered seniority, but it was rejected. Justice Dogar became acting chief justice on February 13 and took oath the next day, boycotted by the five petitioning judges.
Subsequent restructuring reduced Justice Kayani’s authority. The administration committee, once including the chief justice, senior puisne and a senior judge, was reformed to include Chief Justice Dogar and his two nominees.
On February 20, the five judges petitioned the Supreme Court to restrain Justice Dogar from duties as acting chief justice.
In March, Justices Sattar and Imtiaz raised concerns over staff gratuity demands and rule changes stripping the senior puisne judge’s powers. Consolidation of petitions on former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s jail conditions widened divides, with Justice Ishaq questioning a case transfer from his court.
Tensions escalated on March 21, when three replaced IHC tribunal members declared that neither the acting chief justice nor the president could dissolve or reconstitute the tribunal without justification.
In April, Justice Sattar questioned the chief justice’s authority to reassign cases. A division bench of Justices Kayani and Ishaq, upholding a Justice Sattar order, expressed surprise at case transfers without justification and ruled that the acting chief justice exceeded authority, calling for a full court meeting to address rule ambiguities.
Meanwhile, Justice Minhas issued a verdict reinforcing the chief justice’s role as “Master of the Roster” in assigning cases.
On April 28, tensions peaked in two proceedings. Justice Sattar criticized the registrar for not listing a case on removing a former Malir Development Authority director general from the no-fly list, after issuing contempt notices to NAB and immigration heads. A division bench under Justice Dogar had suspended those notices and merged the case.
Justice Sattar accused the deputy registrar of “prima facie defiance” and summoned officials to explain the non-listing and removal of his orders from the database.
In May, two judges accused Justice Sattar of unauthorized proceedings in a stay matter. Justice Sattar challenged a division bench’s suspension of his Exit Control List order, stating he would continue and issue judgment, arguing the bench could not suspend a single bench order that way.
Late May saw a tribunal declare another tribunal of Justices Sattar, Ishaq and Jahangiri “defunct” and scrap its repatriation order.
On June 19, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench ruled 3-2 that the judges’ transfers to the IHC were constitutional, leaving seniority to the president based on service records. The five judges appealed.
Justice Dogar took oath as chief justice on July 8, sidelining the five in committee reshuffles.
On July 16, Justice Ishaq gave the government 30 days to form a commission on blasphemy law misuse, but a division bench of Justices Soomro and Azam suspended it.
In the Aafia Siddiqui case on July 21, Justice Ishaq noticed the prime minister and government, despite not being scheduled due to leave from July 20. No cause list was issued, but his staff allegedly issued one bypassing the chief justice. Justice Ishaq accused the chief justice’s office of “deliberately sabotaging his judicial authority.”
The registrar held contempt notices. In August, the case was reassigned to Justice Minhas under a new roster effective September 1.
Earlier in August, Justices Ishaq and Sattar were placed on a special division bench for tax and commercial matters, preventing single-bench work until clearing a 2,000-case backlog, decided by Chief Justice Dogar. Petitions on their dockets went to other benches.
Earlier this month, a full court meeting adopted the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2025 by slim majority, despite resistance. A proposal from two judges for agenda changes was rejected.
A day prior, Justices Sattar and Ishaq wrote colleagues expressing concerns that administrative powers were “misused to sideline dissenting judges.” They objected to insufficient review time for rules and alleged case assignments were “manipulated to favour” judges transferred with the chief justice, sidelining permanent opponents.
Last week, the IHC fixed a petition challenging Justice Jahangiri’s appointment over an allegedly invalid law degree, which surfaced last year during election petitions. On Tuesday, Chief Justice Dogar and Justice Azam restrained him from judicial powers, sparking bar association outrage.
The degree issue arose while he heard election petitions from Islamabad constituencies, where ruling party lawmakers were uncomfortable. The government issued an ordinance allowing a retired judge to head the tribunal.
Tensions culminated when the IHC stripped Justice Imtiaz of powers to handle harassment complaints after she addressed lawyer Imaan Mazari’s complaint against Chief Justice Dogar. An inquiry committee of Justices Ishaq, Tahir and Imtiaz was formed, but she was swiftly de-notified and replaced by Justice Minhas.
Copyright © 2021 Independent Pakistan | All rights reserved
