In a step that is much seen as "forensic gasket"has the federal government successfully mixed covered in Islamabad High Court (IHC) by transferring three judges from other high courts-a development, which is considered crucial by the exercise of the court’s role in hearing high-profile cases, especially those involving PTI and its leader, Imran Khan. A notification issued by the Ministry of Law announced the transfer of three judges from various high courts to IHC.

"In the exercise of the powers awarded under clause (1) of Article 200 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the president of the Islamic Republic Pakistan is pleased to transfer Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, judge, Lahore High Court from Lahore High Court to Islamabad High Court, Justice Khadim Hussain Somro, judge, High Court of Sindh from High Court of Sindh to Islamabad High Court; and Justice Muhammad Asif, Judge, High Court of Balochistan to Islamabad High Court," The stated message. Justice Dogar ranks 15 in seniority at Lahore High Court (LHC), while Justice Somro is 28. In Sindh High Court (SHC). Justice Muhammad Asif was recently named Balochistan High Court just last month. Justice Dogar’s appointment to LHC came in June 2015, whereas IHC’s senior Puisne, Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, was introduced in December 2015. The reshuffling has given rise to a debate on the decision of the judges’ seniority in IHC. Five IHC judges have written to the most important judge and argued that transferred judges must subside a fresh oath in accordance with Article 194 of the Constitution to serve in a new Supreme Court.

"Similarly, his seniority would be determined from the date of the oath he takes in order to serve at Islamabad High Court: that seniority is determined from the date the oath is declared before such the Supreme Court where the judge is to serve," The letter is called. However, it is unlikely that the government and the IHC higher Aamer Farooq will accept this interpretation. The judiciary during press voltages between the establishment and a majority of IHC judges has increased, especially after the judges wrote to the Supreme Court Council (SJC), which sought guidance on alleged interference from intelligence agencies in judicial affairs. The IHC judges have claimed that they were facing tremendous pressure during the tyranni case and detailed how litigation was manipulated in high-profile issues. PTI -chief Imran Khan has already filed a complaint about the wrongdoing against IHC CJ Aamer Farooq, claiming he had either repeatedly ignored requests from his colleagues to act against open by ensuring that such an interference continued unabated. Senior Attorney and PTI -Leader Chaudhry Fawad Hussain compared the situation with 1937 "Forensic gasket" Plan for US President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"The court’s packing is a well -known concept. Packing the courts is the idea of ​​adding judge to Superior Court or Lower Courts to change balance in favor of the exercise," he noticed. The lawyer warned that this practice was now in full swing in Pakistan, where courts have been literally done inferior the exercise by appointing favorable judges. "This has eroded the independence of the judiciary and has transformed it into a court department in the PCO era."

In addition, he pointed out that bringing judges on ethnic basis was "The worst thing that can happen to Pakistan," Unfortunately, adding it to limited political advantage, "The executive branch plays with the country’s solidarity."

Attorney General Faisal Siddiqi warned that if the move was not turned, "1. February 2025, will be remembered as the start of the complete destruction of IHC".

"Only the lawyers’ mobilization can save us now," he claimed. Meanwhile, Islamabad Bar Council (IBC) has unanimously condemned the government’s decision and called it an attack on judicial independence.

"This decision is a violation of the independence of the judiciary and undermines the rights and representation of the Legal Brotherhood in Islamabad. Islamabad bar Council opposes this decision and is determined to resist such unjustified transfers that disregard the basic principles of legal autonomy and regional representation," IBC said. In response, the council has called an emergent General House session today (Sunday) at. 11:00, along with Islamabad High Court Bar Association and Islamabad District Bar Association. A press conference will follow at 1 p.m. 13.00 to outline their future course of action. All eyes on JCP are all eyes now at the Legal Commission for Pakistan (JCP) and whether it will approve the increase of Justice Aamer Farooq to the Supreme Court. If he is elevated, the question remains: Who will be the next IHC High Court? Legal analyst Reema Omer, who commented on the ongoing court crisis, wrote on X (formerly Twitter) that the development in connection with the judiciary since parliament adopted it 26. Amendment in October 2024 confirms fear that this was not sincere ‘reform’ to do The judges ‘responsible’. Instead, what we see is the most obvious attempt at the legal affair of an uncertain regime struggling with legitimacy. She pointed out how a special parliamentary committee secretly nominated Justice Yahya Afridi as CJP without the publication of the criteria. In addition, Parliament doubled the number of SC judges from 17 to 33 and increased IHC judges from 9 to 12. The practice and procedure was also changed to change the rules of formation formation rules. The constitutional bench appointed on November 5 had no clear criteria, and many urgent constitutional petitions remain unheard of. On December 13, the Constitutional bench allowed military courts to give judgments against civilians, pending a final decision. Attorney Hafiz Ehsaan Ahmad said the next legal question would be to determine the seniority of the transferring judge in IHC following the transfer of three judges from three different high courts to IHC after invoking the provisions of Article 200 of the Constitution. According to him, the date of appointment as the Supreme Court decides often the seniority of this judge. However, he maintained that seniority among the Supreme Court judges is determined by the principle that the date of the appointment and the Oath of Office are the primary criteria of seniority. If several judges are appointed on the same day, seniority is determined by the order in which their names appear in the appointment order issued by the president. He said that when the judges had already subsided when they were first appointed to their respective high courts, Article 194 of the Constitution would not apply to the current transfer of Judge. He added that Article 205, read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, deals with compensation and terms and conditions for the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court judges. According to him, a judge’s salary, privileges and other Terms of Service cannot be changed to their injury while serving, and any changes in terms and conditions – including transfer policies – requires a constitutional change or appropriate legislation. Given the current constitutional situation, he concluded that when Justice Sarfraz Dogar had been transferred from LHC to IHC, his name will now be considered the most older judge before the latter court because of his previous appointment as judge of LHC compared to others Current judges in IHC. The legal expert also stated that if the established IHC CJ is raised to SC at the next meeting of JCP, Justice Dogar’s name will not only be added to the panel of the three most senior judges to appoint IHC CJ. However, it will also be considered by JCP along with the other two most senior judges for such a vacancy in accordance with the Constitution and in accordance with the new JCP rules published in 2024.