• Federal Govt submits seven-page answers to the Supreme Court.
• Says transfer in no way undermines legal independence.
• Constitution does not mention provisions on temporary transfers. “

Islamabad: The federal government on Wednesday submitted its response to the Supreme Court regarding the Judges’ seniority case and called on the point of view to reject all petitions that contested the appointment of the judges, including Islamabad High Court.

“The claims of the petries are denied in all counts, and it is claimed that the process initiated under Article 200 for the transfer of judges from Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan High Court demonstrates and delivers transparency and in no way undermines the judge’s independence,” the center said in his seven-page response copy of which is available with Pakinomist News.

A five-member bench, led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and consists of Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Salahuddin Panhwar and Shakeel Ahmed, among others, submitted by five IHC judges, Karachi Bar Association (KBA) and IHC Bar Association.

In February, five judges in IHC SC moved against the appointment of Justice Sarfraz Dogar as acting Chief Justice of IHC as well as the transfer of judges from three high courts to the capital’s Supreme Court.

Five IHC judges – Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Riffat Imtiaz – filed a petition in the supreme court under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution.

The IHC judges called on the point of view to declare that the president has not unbounded and uninhibited to transfer judges from one Supreme Court to another in accordance with Article 200 (2).

The five IHC lawyers also asked the Pointed Court to declare that in accordance with the established law stated by the highest court in the event of Aslam Awan and Farukh Irfan, the Inter-Se-Seniority of Respondents No. 9-11 will be determined from the date they take oh, who justice IHC and will consequently be lower in the notification list.

In his reply presented today, the federal government claimed that the judges are not required to make a fresh oath after a transfer, as a transfer under Article 200 does not constitute a new appointment.

“Article 200 (1) deals with the president’s power to transfer the judge from one Supreme Court to another, thereby attributing a clear duration to the transfer to the transfer,” it said.

The argument that the transfers are temporary was also rejected, with the government that the Constitution does not mention any such provision for temporary transfers of judges.

“No use of the term” for such a period “or” during the period “of clause (1) of Article 200 clearly reflects that the transfer under this is contrary to clause (3), not in the form of a temporary scheme. Permanensen of the transfer under Article 200 (2).

The federal government emphasized that the Judicial Commission for Pakistan (JCP) on January 1, 2025, before initiating the process in accordance with Article 200 (2). 1.

According to the federal government, the legislation had sent a summary for the judges’ transfer to Islamabad High Court on January 28. It emphasized that the president’s role in such transfers is limited and the real authority lies with Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP).

Therefore, the government requested dismissal of all petitions filed against appointments of judges, including those in Islamabad High Court.

Last hearing

In the previous consultation, the IHC judge’s lawyer Muneer A Malik claimed that the case should be interpreted in the light of Article 175, as it relates to legal transfers, federalism and the role of the administrative committees.

At this, SC’s Justice Mazhar stated that the judges’ transfers fall under Article 200 and that the court cannot treat judges as officials.

The judge outlined the four-layer process of a judge’s transfer: the consent of the judge who is transferred, the commander of both sending and receipt of high courts and final approval of Pakistan’s Chief Justice, after which the president issues the official notification.

He asked the lawyer if the objection was on the transfer or seniority list, which Malik replied, “Both.”

Justice Mazhar also commented on the exercise of adding new language to the Constitution with reference to criticism of Article 62 (2). 1 (f), disqualification of life time, which was later changed by review.

Justice Afghan asked, “Why were new judges not appointed from the same provinces instead of transferring existing ones when vacancies were available?”

He also questioned whether an oath specifically mentions what the Supreme Court the judge swears allegiance to. Malik replied that Eden’s draft specifies Islamabad Capital Territory in the event of IHC agreements.

Before postponing the procedure until April 17, the court issued messages to functioning Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain, Justice Muhammad Asif, The Legal Commission and the Attorney General of Pakistan in response to the petitions filed by the five judge.