The Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court (SC) has returned constitutional requests presented by five judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC), citing multiple procedural objections, according to judicial sources on Monday.
The requests, which challenged the powers of the President of the Supreme Court of IHC, Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, were presented under article 184 (3) of the Constitution.
Article 184 (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan grants the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to listen to matters of public importance with respect to the application of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution.
The Registrar’s Office raised several objections, noting that the judges did not specify any matter of public importance or identify which fundamental rights were affected to justify invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The sources said that the objections declared that the requests seemed to be motivated by personal complaints instead of issues of public interest.
The office cited the precedent of the Supreme Court in Zulfiqar Mehdi vs Pia, which does not allow requests based on personal disputes under article 184 (3).
The registrar also observed that the applications did not meet the essential requirements of article 184 (3), lacked a clear explanation to issue notices to respondents and did not provide solid reasons to present constitutional requests.
The five IHC judges had tried to challenge the administrative powers of the president of the Supreme Court through their requests.
Read: 5 IHC judges challenge the powers of CJ in SC
Previously, five IHC judges went to the SC in person to present separate constitutional requests, challenging several administrative steps taken by the president of the Supreme Court of IHC Dogar.
The judges- Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz-presented the requests under article 184 (3) of the Constitution, which makes them different sentences, including one that seeks a quashando of a justice order that accompanies the justice of justice of justice of justice of justice Justice of Justice.
On September 16, a Bank of the Division, which includes the president of the Supreme Court Dogar and Judge Muhammad Azam Khan, prevented Judge Jahangiri from doing his duties, since he assumed a request as Quo guaranteed that he accused the judge of having a doubtful title of LLB, a measure that deepened the fantasy within the judicial trial.
Interestingly, the bank also sought assistance from the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) Mansoor Awan about the issue of whether the petition was maintained.
He also appointed Major Lawyers Zafarullah Khan and Ashtar Ali Ausaf as Amici Curiae. The Bank pointed out that until the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), the Judges’s Responsibility Forum, which has also been addressed against Judge Jahangiri, decided the matter, the judge could not handle cases.
In their requests, IHC judges ordered the SC to declare that a judge of the Superior Court can only be restricted to work to perform judicial tasks under article 209 of the Constitution.
Read more: IHC judges challenge the authority of CJ in case transfers, Judge Remalls
They argued that a court order of quo guide that seeks the elimination of a judge of the position is not maintained in terms of article 209 (7) read with article 199 (1) of the Constitution.
In his request, Judge Jahangiri described the order of September 16 as a violation of his fundamental rights under article 10-A. The sources said that the judge’s request has been assigned the newspaper number 23409 and that he can argue his case himself before the Apex court.
The petitioners also asked the Superior Court to declare that the administrative powers cannot be deployed to undermine or Trump Powers of the judges of the Superior Court and that the President of the Supreme Court is not authorized to constitute banks or transfer cases, once a bank of the matter is seized.
He urged the Court to declare that the president of the Superior Court of a Superior Court cannot exclude the available judges from the list, at will, and use the power to issue a list to expel judges to perform judicial functions;
He also requested the SC to declare that the Constitution of banks, the transfer of cases and the issuance of the list can only be made in accordance with the rules adopted by the entire Superior Court of article 202, read with article 192 (1) of the Constitution.
“Declare that the doctrine of the ‘Master of the List’ has definitely reserved in the SC decisions, even in the Raja Amer Khan V Federation of Pakistan and the decision -making with respect to the constitution of the banks, the transfer of cases or the issuance of the list cannot rest in the hands of the CJ.”
The judges also requested that the Superior Court declare as illegal the formation of the IHC Administration Committees through notifications on 03.02.2025 and 15.07.2025, and all the actions taken by them.
The requests also urged the SC to declare that the adoption and approval of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of IHC, 2025, by the Administration Committee, and its notification without the prior approval of the IHC, breached article 192 (1) with article 202 of the Constitution.
“Direct the IHC to provide effective supervision and supervision on the functioning of the Judicial Power of the District, as ordered by the Constitution under article 203, and section 6 of the IHC Law, 2010, and to provide the Judicial Power of the Islamabad district as a permanent institution, of which they enjoy judicial independence and can discharge their judicial tasks without considerations of fear or favor;
“Declare that the Superior Court cannot issue a court order under article 199 of the Constitution to itself and a bank of the division of the Superior Court does not have the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction to sit in appeal for the interlocutory orders of a single bank or can assume control over the procedures of a single bank as if it were a lower court or court,” the requests added.
The same IHC judges had opposed the transfer of three judges, including Judge Dogar, from other courts higher than the IHC in February this year.
After the rejection of his representation by the then president of the Supreme Court of IHC, Aamer Farooq, these judges had approached the SC, whose Constitutional Bank (CB) rejected their requests on June 20. The intra-channel appeal of the judges is still pending.
On March 26, 2024, six IHC judges, including all the judges of the petitioners, wrote a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan (SJCP), alleging the interference of an intelligence agency in judicial matters.
The letter documented cases of pressure on the judges through the kidnapping and torture of their relatives and secret surveillance within their residences.
