The Bar Association of the Superior Court of Islamabad has presented a new petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the president’s authority to transfer the judges without justification of public interest.
This marks the second great challenge for judicial transfers in recent days.
Filed under article 184 (3) by the president of the Bar Association, Riasat Ali Azad, the petition maintains that the President has no unlimited powers under article 200 (1) of the Constitution to reallow the judges among the courts superiors.
He argues that judicial transfers should only occur in public interest.
The petition follows a similar movement of five judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) has presented a petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging judicial transfers and their impact on antiquity.
The constitutional request of 49 pages, presented by virtue of article 184 (3) through higher lawyers Munir A. Malik and Barríster Salahuddin, argues that the president of Pakistan used article 200 (1) when annulled the authority of the commission of the commission Judicial in the transfer of judges.
The petition argues that judicial transfers cannot be made without public interest and should not affect the seniority list.
In addition, it states that article 200 only allows temporary transfers, and the current process violates article 175 (a) of the Constitution.
The judges have urged the Supreme Court to invalidate the current age of the Superior Court of Islamabad, citing their inconsistency with article 194 and the third time of the Constitution.
The petition specifically challenges the appointment of Judge Sarfraz to tell as the president of IHC interim, stating that he had only turned two weeks in the Superior Court before assuming administrative control.
It also demands that Judges Khalid Soomro and Muhammad Asif be prohibited by judicial work.
The president of Pakistan, the Federal Government, the Judicial Commission, the registrar of the Supreme Court and multiple registrars of the Superior Court have been surveyed in the case.
The five petition judges are Judge Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Judge Babar Sattar, Judge Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Judge Saman Rafat Imtiaz and Judge Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan.
The petition also states that the failure of the transferred judges to make a new oath is a constitutional violation.
He affirms that antiquity begins in the Superior Court where a judge makes the oath, and altering it through transfers is an unconstitutional interference in the IHC administration.
