The Supreme Court (SC) Registrar’s Office has returned constitutional petitions filed by five judges from Islamabad High Court (IHC), quoting multiple procedural objections, according to court sources on Monday.
The petitions that challenged the powers of IHC High Court Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar were submitted in accordance with Article 184 (2). 3, in the Constitution.
Article 184 (2).
The registrar’s office raised several objections and noted that the judges could not specify any question of public importance or to identify what fundamental rights were affected to justify the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
Sources said the objections stated that the petitions appeared to be motivated by personal complaints rather than questions of general interest.
The office quoted the Supreme Court’s precedent in Zulfiqar Mehdi against Pia, which does not allow petitions based on personal disputes under Article 184 (2). 3.
The registrar also observed that the applications did not meet the essential requirements of Article 184 (2).
The five IHC judges had tried to challenge the administrative powers of Chief Justice Dogar through their petitions.
Read: 5 IHC referees challenge CJ’s powers in SC
Previously, five IHC judges went to SC personally to submit separate constitutional petitions and challenged several administrative steps taken by IHC Chief Justice Dogar.
Judges Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat IMTIAZ-INGIVED The petitions under Article 184 (3) in the work of the Constitution, which made eleven different prayers, including one who seeks to disguise a IHC order that prevented the right work.
On September 16, a division bench consisting of Chief Justice Dogar and Justice Muhammad Azam Khan, Justice Jahangiri stopped from performing his duties when it took a quo -warranto -arriving, accused the judge of having a dubious LLB degree -a step that elaborated on Chash within the judge.
Interestingly, the bench also sought help from the lawyer for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan on the question of whether the petition was maintainable.
It also appointed senior lawyers Barrister Zafarullah Khan and Ashtar Ali Ausaf to Amici Curiae. The bench noted that until the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) – the judges’ responsibility forum, which has also been contacted against Justice Jahangiri – decided the case, the judge could not handle cases.
In their petitions, the IHC judges called SC to declare that the judge of a Supreme Court can only be detained from working from performing legal duties in accordance with Article 209 of the Constitution.
Read more: IHC Judge challenges CJS Authority on Case Transfers, Judge Removal
They claimed that a writing of Quo Warranto seeking the removal of a judge from the office cannot be maintained in the form of Article 209 (2). 7, read with Article 199 (2). 1, in the Constitution.
In his petition, Justice Jahangiri described September 16 as a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 10-A. Sources said the judge’s petition has been awarded a diary number 23409 and that he may claim his case even before the point of view.
The petries also requested the supreme court to declare that the administrative powers cannot be deployed to undermine or Trump judicial powers from the Supreme Court’s judges, and Chief Justice is not authorized to constitute benches or transfer cases when a bench is seized by the case.
It called on the right to declare that the Supreme Court’s Supreme Court cannot exclude available judges from the schedule, at their own discretion and use the power to issue a list to remove judges from performing legal functions;
It also requested SC to declare that the constitution of benches, transfer of cases and the issuance of program list can only be carried out in accordance with the rules adopted by the entire Supreme Court under Article 202, read with Article 192 (2) of the Constitution. 1.
“Decide that the doctrine of ‘Master of the Roster’ has been definitely devoted to the SC decisions, including in Raja Amer Khan V Federation of Pakistan and the decision making with regard to the constitution of benches, transferring cases or issuing list of not only rest in the hands of CJ.”
The judges also requested that the supreme court declared that there was illegal formation of the IHC Administration Committee through messages dated 03.02.2025 and 15.07.2025, and all the actions taken.
The petitions also called on SC to declare that the adoption and approval of the IHC Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025, of the Administration Committee, and its notification without prior approval of IHC, was contrary to Article 192 (2). 1, read with Article 202 of the Constitution.
“Records IHC to provide effective supervision and supervision of the functioning of the district system, as imposed by the Constitution under Article 203 and Section 6 of the IHC Act, 2010, and to provide Islamabad -District Judge as a permanent institution in which members enjoy the independence of the court and can perform their legal duties without consideration of fear or benefit;
“Declare that High Court cannot issue a writing under Article 199 of the Constitution for itself, and that a division bench at High Court is neither entitled to Jurisdiction to sit in appeal over conversation orders from a single bench, nor can it take control of the case for a single bench as if it is a subordinate court or court,” added the petitions.
The same IHC judges had opposed the transfer of three judges – including Justice Dogar – from other high courts to IHC in February this year.
After rejection of their representation of the then IHC High Court, Aamer Farooq, these judges had approached SC, whose Constitution Bench (CB) rejected their petitions on June 20. The judges’ intra-law’s appeal against CB’s order is still pending.
On March 26, 2024, six IHC judges, including all pek judge, wrote a letter to the highest legal advice in Pakistan (SJCP), which claimed the interference of an intelligence agency in judicial affairs.
The letter documented cases of pressure on judges through the abduction and torture of their relatives and secret surveillance within their homes.
