The Chief Justice has been given more powers, which can include any judge in the administrative committee; the condition of having a senior judge as a mandatory member has also been abolished
Court Reporter, Daily Dawn, Dawn TV, OK TV Report
Islamabad: Differences have emerged among the judges over the approval of the new rules of the Islamabad High Court, while the administration maintains that all judges were included in the process.
Five judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) have finalised their objections to the hasty approval of the new court rules and said that there was no meaningful consultation involved.
However, the IHC administration maintains that all judges were included in the process of making the rules several months ago, while the full court meeting was called later.
The High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2025 were passed by a mere one-vote majority in the recent full court meeting, with six out of 11 judges voting in favour.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ijaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Riffat Imtiaz are the five senior judges who opposed the move and demanded amendments, all of whom will submit their dissenting notes.
According to the new rules, the Chief Justice has been given more powers; now he can include any judge of his choice in the administrative committee, while the condition of having a senior judge as a mandatory member has also been removed.
A day before the full court meeting, Justice Babar Sattar and Justice Sardar Ijaz Ishaq Khan wrote a letter to their fellow judges expressing concerns that administrative powers are allegedly being used to sideline dissenting judges.
Later, he also objected to the manner in which the rules were presented in the meeting, saying that insufficient time was given for proper scrutiny.
According to Justice Ijaz Ishaq Khan, the new Practice and Procedure Rules (PPR) were formally notified, although there was neither a meaningful discussion nor approval in the full court.
He claimed that the draft, consisting of over 600 pages, was distributed just a day and a half before the meeting, due to which the consultation remained a mere formality, and it was not possible to give meaningful suggestions.
Leave a Reply