Islamabad:

Five Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges have refused to accept justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar as judge of IHC, which raises alarms over his seniority and legitimacy Pakistan (JCP) meeting.

In a representation presented IHC CJ Aamer Farooq, Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz claimed that Justice Dogar cannot be considered an IHC judge before taking oath like demanded under Article 194 of the Constitution.

“However, the process of Justice Dogar’s appointment as Judge for Islamabad High Court is not com-Plete, for he has not yet sworn an oath to serve in Islamabad High Court, as Article 194 makes necessary. Therefore, he cannot be considered a judge By Islamabad High Court, ”read it.

The lawyers claimed that when Justice Dogar presents his oath as a judge for IHC, his seniority must be determined from the date on which oath is administered to him by IHC CJ. Therefore, Justice Dogar will be lower in seniority than the undersigned judges who took their oaths in front of him.

The judges have called on IHC Chief Justice to resolve the matter before the JCP meeting, which is scheduled for February 10th.

“We support a copy of this representation to the honest Chief Justice of Pakistan, in his capacity as President JCP, to bring the case to JCP’s attention, in order for the legality of the case to be made by JCP on 10.02.2025 also because of treatment of judges for appointment to the Supreme Court from an illegal and erroneously composed panel of judges from Islamabad High Court, “the judges claimed.

They claim that a judge’s assumption of office is conditional on taking oaths in accordance with Article 194, which gives a judicial authority within the respective Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

The eeden does not allow him/her to serve beyond this territorial jurisdiction, they further claimed.

The representation also noted that Justice Dogar has not yet handed down an oath as IHC judge and has only been sworn in as a Lahore High Court judge. However, IHC’s seniority list already lists as IHC judge and places him directly under Chief Justice.

“This demonstrates a serious jurisdictional error, for a judge cannot be considered to have been Apointed to a Supreme Court until he puts oath to that Supreme Court.”

‘Courageous attempt to pack the court’

In a comment on the development, lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii said that the involvement of judges from Sindh and Balochistan were merely “window dressing,” and claimed that the real question is about Justice Dogar’s appointment.

“This is only about Justice Dogar and using him to interrupt seniority in IHC and to deprive independent judges of their deserved station within this court.”

Jaferii criticized the IHC High Court and said he has been in violation of a majority of his own judges.

He noted that IHC has been driven by a CJ for years who has failed his colleagues and helped the powerful circles to brush their allegations of interference under the rug.

“This is something that the government cannot afford to lose,” he noted, adding that the government was trying to manipulate IHC’s seniority structure by using “federal representation” as an apology.

“IHC already has federal representation. There are judges from Karachi, SWAT and Quetta. The Quetta judge last complained that his father was brought and stood in front of him as a compulsory measurement,” he pointed out.

Jaferii questioned why the government chose to transfer service judges instead of appointing fresh candidates from Sindh and Balochistan.

“If it was about affirmative actions, there have been lists that were submitted to Sindh High Court and Balochistan High Court, where candidates could not cut. These candidates could have been considered for fresh appointments to IHC. Why should it be server judges? What have these judges done to deserve such transfers in front of their peers?

He called the move of a “shambolic and bold attempt to pack a court,” he expressed shock over Chief Justice for Pakistan’s role in legitimizing it.

“It’s shocking that the country’s Supreme Court goes together to celebrate it as a certain gesture of including fraud,” the lawyer added.

Similarly, lawyer Hasan Mann claimed that the Constitution only provided a procedure for AP points of a Supreme Court Judge through the prescribed initial appointment process without alternatively.

He explained that although Article 200 (2). 1, enabled the transfer of a Supreme Court judge from one Supreme Court to another, such a transfer cannot be permanent, as the president has no authority to appoint a Supreme Court judge through transfer.

In addition, Mann pointed out that Article 200 (2). 1, cannot be read in isolation, as Article 200 (1). 2, the temporary nature of such transfers managed. Any interpretation that suggests otherwise would effectively give the president the power to manipulate seniority of the Supreme Court’s judges and oppose the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2014.

If a Supreme Court judge was transferred permanently, he would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list, as is the case in civil services. Any other arrangement, Mann claimed, would create chaos in the SU-Perior Court.

This is why the consent of the Transferee judge was crucial as such a movement could put him in a discrepancy.

He added that comparisons with the Indian court are irrelevant, as the provisions of the Indian Constitution are formulated differently.

Administrative switching in IHC

Meanwhile, after the addition of three new judges, IHC Chief Justice has made several admin-Indist changes.

Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar has been appointed administrator of anti-terrorism courts (ATC) and national responsibility courts and replaces Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani.

Justice Muhammad Azam Khan has been appointed to the administrative judge of Islamabad’s District Court (West), Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir has been charged with the FIA ​​courts, and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz has been appointed administrative judge of the bank’s courts.