Islamabad:
The leader of a constitutional bench (CB) from the Point Court has observed that the transfer of a judge from one Supreme Court to another is a process that cannot be completed without the consent of all involved.
“The president has the authority to transfer a judge, but the process may end if the judge in question or Chief Justice for his own Supreme Court or Supreme Court Supreme Court, where he is transferred, or Chief Justice of Pakistan does not agree with it,” noted Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
Justice Mazhar was heading for a CB with five members and heard the petitions filed against the transfer of three judges from provincial high courts to Islamabad High Court (IHC) in February this year and the subsequent change in the capital’s seniority list.
Barrister Salahuddin, adviser to the five IHC judges who have challenged the transfer, continued his counter-movement arguments and claimed that Article 200 of the Constitution applies only to Sub-Section 3.
He argued that in Civil Service, a transfer from one department to another seniority affects, as opposed to the judiciary, where no deputation or merger of judges in two high courts takes place.
Punjab -Attorney Amjad Perez also filed a various application during the consultation.
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar asked about the application, which Pervez responded that he had submitted historical registration of judicial transfers from 1947 to 1976 and acknowledged that even though they were not a party to the case, a message had been issued in accordance with Rule 27-A. Justice Mazhar noted that the 27-A message is specifically to become a party, and the Attorney General should have followed the Attorney General of Pakistan in presenting arguments.
Upon completion of the disgust, the court imposed other councils that represented the petitioners to conclude their arguments by Tuesday. The consultation was then postponed until today.
