Islamabad:
The clash between the judges of the Superior Court of Islamabad (IHC) has intensified with Judge Babar Sattar that states that a division bank, led by the president of the Interim Supreme Court of IHC, Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz, Dangar has no authority to suspend the pending procedures before a single bank and to “frustrate” the procedures.
A single member bank that comprises the Sattar justice was listening to a case related to the immigration and passport department. He had postponed it until April 28 after his last audience on March 26.
However, the petition did not appear for the audience on April 28 in the list of regular causes. Judge Sattar on April 25 issued an address to the deputy secretary of IHC (judicial) on the administrative side that the matter will be included for the hearing on April 28 under the order of March 26.
The judge also ordered that a list of complementary cases be issued to list the matter for a compliance hearing of the order of March 26 “that had not been challenged before a competent jurisdiction court and remained in the field.”
However, the deputy secretary informed the Bank through a note that an objection application had been submitted before the Bench-I division challenging the order of the bank of a single member dated March 26.
He pointed out that the Bank of the Division on March 26 admitted the appeal for a regular audience. In addition, he ordered the registrar that the club other two cases with the instantaneous case.
However, Judge Sattar held the hearing of the case on Monday and then issued an 8 -page order, stating that his orders dated March 26 and March 12 were of an interlocutory nature and the final adjudication of the Sujana remains pending.
He pointed out that the judges that include Division Bench-1 were not assisted in an adequate and competent way when they were seized by the ICA NO 98 of 2025 that led to an order dated March 26.
“If your attention had been drawn to attention to the legal proposals established above, it is unthinkable that the registration of this court had convened or issued any direction that would frustrate or frustrate the pending procedures before this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction.
“The Supreme Court has clarified in several recent cases that there is no administrative authority in the office of the President of the Supreme Court to interfere with a pending issue before a duly constituted bank that seized that matter and listens to it.”
The Order said that by not enumerating the request for the audience on April 28, the deputy -registered (judicial) Prima Facie acted in breach of the order of March 26, which was never challenged and remains in the field.
Meanwhile, the Bar Association of the Superior Court of Lahore has presented a replica in the case of seniority of the IHC judges.
A constitutional bank of five members of the Supreme Court will resume the hearing of the case today.
