Islamabad High Court Bar Association has submitted a new petition into the Supreme Court and challenged the president’s authority to transfer judges without justification for general interest.
This marks the other major challenge for judicial transfers in recent days.
The petition has been submitted in accordance with Article 184 (2).
It claims that judicial transfers should occur only in the public interest.
The petition follows a similar step from five judges from Islamabad High Court (IHC) has filed a petition in the Supreme Court in Pakistan that challenges legal transfers and their influence on seniority.
The 49-page constitutional petition filed in accordance with Article 184 (2).
The petition claims that judicial transfers cannot be made without the public interest and should not affect the seniority list.
It also states that Article 200 only allows temporary transfers and the current process violates Article 175 (a) of the Constitution.
The judges have called on the Supreme Court to invalid Islamabad High Court’s current seniority list with reference to its inconsistency with Article 194 and the third schedule of the constitution.
The petition specifically challenges the appointment of Justice Sarfraz Dogar to functioning Chief Justice of IHC, saying he had only earned two weeks in High Court before assuming administrative control.
It also calls for judges Khalid Somro and Muhammad Asif to be excluded from legal work.
The president of Pakistan, the federal government, the judicial commission, the Supreme Court’s registrar and several Supreme Court Registrators have been handed off respondents in the case.
The five petition judges are justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz and Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan.
The petition also claims that the transferred judges who were transferred to take a new oath is a constitutional violation.
It claims that seniority begins in High Court, where a judge first puts oath and to change it through transfers is a constitutional interference in IHC’s administration.
