Barely among Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges have been intensified with Justice Babar Sattar that a division bench – led by IHC functioning Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, has no authority to suspend the procedure pending for a single bench and to “frustrate” procedures.

A bench with a single member consisting of Justice Sattar heard a case related to the Department of Immigration and Passport. He had postponed it until April 28 after his last hearing on March 26.

However, the petition was not listed for consultation on April 28 on the regular causal list. On April 25, Justice Sattar issued a direction to the IHC site’s registrar (judicial) on the administrative side that the case was listed for consultation on April 28 by order dated March 26.

The judge also ordered that a supplementary causal list was issued to list the case for having heard in accordance with the order dated March 26, “which had not been inflicted before a competent court and remained in the field”.

However, Deputy Justice Secretary informed the bench through a note that an objection application had been filed before the Bench-I Division, which challenged the order of the single member bench dated March 26.

He noted that the division bench on March 26 admitted the appeal for regular consultation. It also ordered the registrar for Club two other cases with the immediate case.

However, Justice Sattar held the hearing of the case on Monday and later issued an 8-page order in which he stated that his orders dated March 26 and March 12 were the interlocutor in Nature and the final assessment of the topic that is pending.

He noted that the judges who included Division Bench-1 were not helped properly and competently when they were seized by ICA No. 98 of 2025, which led to order dated March 26.

“If their attention had been drawn to the elaborated legal proposals mentioned above, it is not conceivable that they would have convened the record before this court or otherwise issued any direction that would avert or frustrate the case pending before this court in its constitutional jurisdiction.

“It has been clarified by the Supreme Court in a number of recent cases that there is also no administrative authority in the Chief Justice Office to interfere with a question pending before a duly composed bench seized by that case and hears it.”

The order that was said by not indicating the petition for consultation on April 28 traded the Deputy Registrar (judicial) Prima Facie in violation of the order dated March 26, which was never applied and remain in the field.

Meanwhile, the Lahore High Court Bar Association has presented a merger in the IHC judges’ seniority case.

A five-member constitutional bench from the Supreme Court resumes the hearing of the case today.