ISLAMABAD: Addressing the hullabaloo over the transfer of three judges to Islamabad High Court (IHC), Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi stressed that the move was constitutional and that the judges from other provinces have been moved to symbolise the importance of federation in Pakistan.
Justice Afridi emphasised that judges from other regions should also be given a chance at representation: “One Balochi-speaking judge and one Sindhi-speaking judge have joined the IHC. The federation belongs to the entire country.”
Dubbing the move as a ‘positive’ step, Justice Afridi said the transfer have been carried out under Article 200. He also urged judges to appreciate the decision and support their newly transferred colleagues. “The appointment and transfer of judges are two separate matters and should not be mixed,” he pointed out.
Addressing concerns about resistance from some judges, he assured that he was making efforts to address their reservations. “I will engage with all judges and have discussions with them,” he said adding, “over time, everything will settle down.”
Justice Afridi said there is a need for more judges in the Supreme Court to clear the backlog of pending cases: “I hear 30 to 40 cases daily, but the burden falls on only a few judges. Every judge is independent and empowered, and I will exercise my authority fearlessly within the jurisdiction.”
CJP Afridi added that the newly transferred judges were already serving as high court judges.
He said that he would keep making efforts to address concerns among other judges about the transfers to bring them on one page: “As the Chief Justice of Pakistan, one must have a broad vision. I will engage in discussions with all judges, and will visit high court judges to speak to them. With time, everything will settle down.”
Earlier, there was significant disruption at Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday as lawyers staged a strike in protest against the transfer of three judges from other high courts. The High Court Bar Association had called for a complete boycott of court proceedings, resulting in more than 80 percent of scheduled cases seeing no lawyer representation.
With lawyers absent, only law officers, government lawyers, and petitioners appeared in the hearings, causing delays and early adjournments in multiple courtrooms.