The founding president of Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI), Imran Khan, presented a petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging the recent transfer of judges, qualifying it unconstitutional and illegal.
The petition, presented under article 184 (3) of the Constitution, argues that the transfer notification violates judicial independence. Imran has asked the court to declare the null and null notification.
The federal government and the registrars of the higher courts in Lahore, Sindh, Baluchistan and Islamabad have been appointed as surveyed in the case.
Imran’s plea seeks a directive of the Supreme Court to guarantee the fulfillment of the legal precedents, including the historical case of trust of Al-Jehad, which established guidelines for judicial appointments and transfers.
The petition emphasizes that judicial transfers must adhere to constitutional principles and should not be influenced by external pressures. It also demands a strict observance of judicial autonomy.
The challenge occurs amid high tensions between the Imran party and the Government, with the judiciary often in the center of political controversies. Legal experts believe that the case could prove the position of the Supreme Court on judicial independence.
Imran’s legal team argues that the measure could affect fair judgments and judicial neutrality, urging the court to immediately intervene.
Last month, the judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) decided to challenge the rejection of their representation.
The representation seeks the restoration of the anterior antiquity structure of the IHC. In addition, the petition will request the cancellation of the decision issued by the President of the IHC Justice, Aamer Faooq, who had dismissed the representation.
The president of the Supreme Court Aamer Faooq had previously confirmed the placement of three judges transferred to the IHC of three other superior courts, affirming their classifications in the second, ninth and 12 positions in the antiquity list.
The new seniority list was challenged by five IHC judges.
The president of the Supreme Court ruled that the transferred judges did not require a new oath and that their age would be counted from the date of their first oath in the Superior Court. Consequently, the new seniority list of IHC judges will remain unchanged.
On February 1, the fortress of the judges in the IHC increased with the transfer of Judge Sarfaraz Dogar of the Superior Court of Lahore (LHC), Judge Khadim Hussain Soomro of the Superior Court of Sindh and Judge Muhammad Asif of the Superior Court of Baluchistan.
Later, on February 4, a revised seniority list was issued, designating Judge Sarfaraz to tell the senior judge of Puisne, followed by Judge Mohsin Akhtar Kayani as the second most senior judge and Judge Miangul Hassan Aurengzeb in third position.
Judge Tariq Jahangiri was in the fourth place, Judge Babar Sattar Sattar Fifth, Judge Sardar Ishaq Khan Sixth, Judge Arbab Muhammad Tahir Seventh, Judge Summan Riffat Imtiaz Eighth, Judge Soomro Ninth 12th
Following the new seniority list, Judge Kayani, Judge Jahangiri, Judge Sattar, Judge Khan and Judge Imtiaz presented a representation to the President of the Supreme Court, saying that the Justice to tell could not be considered an IHC judge until he made an oath as required under article 194 of the Constitution.
The five judges said the judge to tell had only been sworn as LHC judge. However, the IHC seniority list has already listed it as judge of IHC, placing it directly under the president of the Supreme Court. They urged the president of the Supreme Court to resolve the matter before the JCP meeting.
The sources said that the president of the IHC court rejected the representation and instructed the IHC registrar office to inform all these five judges about their decision about the representation. Consequently, Judge Dogar, who provided an oath as judge of the Superior Court in 2015, would be the senior judge of Puisne of the IHC.
