Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, a member of the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench, noted on Wednesday that three chief law had given their consent to those court transfers. He added that Chief Justice Yahya Afridi had given a detailed explanation of the federal structure of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in this context.

Justice Mazhar made these observations while sitting on a five-member bench that heard a series of petitions challenging the inter-sancienity of five sitting judges, namely Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz.

The five judges have jointly petitioned the Pointing Court and argued that the three transferred judges should not be regarded as IHC judges before taking a fresh oath in accordance with Article 194 of the Constitution read in connection with Schedule III.

Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain Somro and Justice Muhammad Asif were transferred from the high courts of Lahore, Sindh and Balochistan on February 1 for a notification issued by the President of Pakistan under Article 200 (1) of the constitution.

During the consultation on Wednesday, senior lawyer Munir A Malik, who represented the five judges, argued that the transfer of a judge is a performing act and therefore subject to legal review.

He claimed that the transfer summary was sent to the president without cabinet approval and referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Mustafa IMPEX case, which emphasized constitutional requirements for executive decisions.

Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan noted that Mustafa IMPEX decision canceled section 16 (2). 2, in the business rules, which he said was not directly related to the process of the judges’ transfer.

Advisor Munir a Malik quoted Qazi Faez Isa President’s reference case, where the Supreme Court had emphasized the president’s obligation to apply an independent mind to legal affairs.

He said the referee transfer summaries reflected that the president and the prime minister gave their approval the same day. He claimed that the judiciary was not heard before the issue of the transfer messages and that the summaries were not directed through the judiciary.

Justice Mazhar noted that three managerial dishes had expressed consent to the transfers in question. He also noted that Chief Justice Yahya Afridi had detailed IHC’s federal structure in this regard.

Munir A Malik claimed that when the summary was sent, no mention of oath and seniority was not mentioned. He said after the approval of the summary, the notification stated that no new oath was needed.

Justice Mazhar noted that Article 200 of the Constitution – which manages the transfer of judges – was referred to the announcement. He noted that consultation between judges would have taken place. He said there was no mention of oath in the message.

Munir A Malik claimed that the rationale for the mentioned transfers from Punjab. He pointed out that Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Babar Sattar and Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan, who all had Punjab residence, already served IHC. He said the transfers were part of a predetermined effort to dominate IHC.

Later, the hearing of the case was postponed until May 7.