ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of the case concerning the transfer and seniority of judges till May 7, following arguments presented by senior lawyer Munir A. Malik.
During the proceedings, Malik argued that Article 200(1) of the Constitution cannot be read in isolation and must be viewed in conjunction with Section 2 of the same article. He questioned the scope of the executive’s authority in transferring judges, asking: “How is the executive meant to exercise this power? Are there any conditions attached?”
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed whether the executive’s authority to transfer judges could be subjected to judicial review. Malik replied in the affirmative, adding that the summary for the judges’ transfer was initially moved by the law ministry and later forwarded by the prime minister to the president—without prior cabinet approval.
Written replies submitted to SC in judges transfer, seniority case
Justice Mazhar inquired if Malik would be able to conclude his arguments by today: “If you’re done, we can start hearing the next counsel from Monday,” the judge remarked, adding that a member of the bench was scheduled to travel to Karachi, and the case had to be wrapped up before 9:30am.
Highlighting the constitutional framework, Malik said Article 90 declared the prime minister as the chief executive of the country, who formulates policy and ensures its implementation. He added that the prime minister appoints the law minister after consulting Parliament.
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan pointed out that Rule 60, cited by Malik, does not specifically relate to judicial transfers. Malik, however, reiterated that Article 90 clearly empowers the chief executive officer with relevant authority.
Five IHC judges submit written response to SC in transfers case
Five judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) have submitted a written response to the Supreme Court through their counsels Munir A. Malik and Rafaqat Hussain, raising serious concerns over the federal government’s conduct in the judges’ transfer matter.
In the submission, the judges accused the federal government of misrepresenting facts regarding the transfers. The response states that the government falsely claimed there was a lack of provincial representation in the Islamabad High Court during consultations on the matter.
The judges further argued that the Chief Justice was not informed that the newly appointed judges would assume office without taking the oath—a key procedural lapse.
They also pointed to the timing of Justice Aamer Farooq’s proposed elevation to the Supreme Court, saying that his transfer immediately afterward appeared to be “meaningful.”
“We are not raising a personal grievance before the Supreme Court,” the response clarified. “The real question is whether the federal government can, in bad faith, undermine a high court in such a manner.”