The Chief Justice cannot remove available judges from the list at will, nor can he use this power to remove judges from judicial duties, the petition states
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Saman Riffat and Justice Ijaz Ishaq Khan filed separate petitions in the Supreme Court
Muhammad Azhar, Daily Dawn, Dawn TV
Islamabad: Five judges of the High Court have approached the Supreme Court against the powers and actions of the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Saman Riffat and Justice Ijaz Ishaq Khan filed separate petitions in the Supreme Court.
In the petitions, the judges have urged the Supreme Court that administrative powers cannot be used to dilute or override the judicial powers of the judges of the High Court.
It was further said that the Chief Justice of the High Court is not empowered to constitute new benches or transfer cases once a case has been assigned to a bench.
The petitions also said that the Chief Justice cannot arbitrarily remove available judges from the list, nor can he use this power to remove judges from judicial duties.
The Supreme Court was also told that the constitution of benches, transfer of cases and issuance of lists can be done only in accordance with rules made with the approval of all the judges of the High Court, which are adopted under Articles 202 and 192(1) of the Constitution.
The petitioners further pleaded that the decision-making regarding the constitution of benches, roster, High Court Rules and transfer of cases cannot be solely within the power of the Chief Justice, and the principle of Master of the Roster has been abolished in the judgments of the Supreme Court.
The petitions also said that the administrative committees constituted through the notifications issued on February 3 and July 15 and their actions are based on legal malice, illegal and null and void.
The court was requested to declare these notifications and all the actions of the committees illegal.
It was further submitted that the approval of the Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules 2025 by the illegally constituted administrative committee and the issuance of the notification without the prior approval of the High Court is a violation of Articles 192(1) and 202 of the Constitution, and its ratification in September is also illegal and void.
The judges prayed that the Supreme Court should direct the Islamabad High Court to exercise effective supervision and oversight over the district judiciary, as enshrined in Article 203 of the Constitution, so that each High Court can supervise and control its subordinate courts.
The petitioner requested the Supreme Court to declare that the High Court cannot issue any writ for itself under Article 199 of the Constitution, which deals with the jurisdiction of the High Court.
He further said that the Division Bench of the High Court neither has the power to appeal against the interim decisions of a single bench nor can it exercise such control over the proceedings of a single bench as if it were a lower court or tribunal.
An interim order refers to a temporary decision given in a pending case.
The petitioners told the Supreme Court that a High Court judge can only be restrained from performing judicial functions under Article 209, and filing a writ of quo warranto to remove a judge from office is not proper.
Article 209 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Judicial Council to investigate the competence and conduct of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
The petitioners concluded their submissions by requesting the Supreme Court to grant any other relief it deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
Leave a Reply