ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled the transfer of high court judges is constitutional and lawful.
Issuing a detailed verdict in the judges’ transfer and seniority case, the apex court ruled that the decision to transfer judges lies within the judiciary’s domain, while matters related to seniority are referred to the president.
The 55-page judgment, authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, came while disposing of petitions challenging the transfer and seniority of judges at the Islamabad High Court.
In March, the Karachi Bar Association filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the transfer of judges to the Islamabad High Court.
The Supreme Court observed that under Article 200, the president holds the authority to transfer judges, but such transfers cannot be made without a judge’s consent and consultation.
It further noted that the transfer process falls within judicial domain, with the judiciary’s opinion carrying precedence, and that such transfers do not undermine judicial independence.
The verdict also stated that no mala fide intent or retaliatory action was proven in the transfers, which were carried out in line with the Constitution and law.
It added that Section 3 of the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010 does not bar such transfers, and the principle of provincial representation had not been violated.
According to the decision, the president will determine the seniority of judges based on their service record, as well as whether the transfers are permanent or temporary.
“The matter of seniority was therefore sent back to the president for determination, while petitions challenging the transfers are dismissed,” the ruling said.
Earlier, on June 19, Supreme Court’s constitutional bench had declared the transfer of three judges to the Islamabad High Court lawful, rejecting petitions filed by five IHC judges. The short order, passed by a 3–2 majority, stated that the transfers were not unconstitutional.
In the majority opinion, authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and supported by Justices Shahid Bilal Hassan and Salahuddin Panhwar, the bench ruled that the president, under Article 200, has the authority to transfer a high court judge from one court to another. The court added that this power is distinct from the appointment of judges under Article 175 and should not be conflated.
The judgment said that assuming all judicial posts must only be filled through the Judicial Commission of Pakistan would contradict the framers’ intent, as transfers are governed by a separate constitutional provision independent of the commission.
The bench had directed the president to immediately issue a notification clarifying whether the transfers were permanent or temporary, and to determine the judges’ seniority after reviewing their service record.
Subsequently, on June 29, 2025, the president declared Justice Sarfraz Dogar as the senior-most judge of the Islamabad High Court and confirmed the permanent transfer of Justice Dogar and two others.
On July 1, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, approved the elevation of Justice Sarfraz Dogar as Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court, Justice Junaid Ghaffar as Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court, Justice Atiq Shah as Chief Justice of the Peshawar High Court, and Justice Rozi Khan as Chief Justice of the Balochistan High Court.
Following presidential approval, the law ministry issued notifications on July 7, and the four new chief justices took oath on July 8.
It may be recalled that the Lahore High Court Bar Association and the Lahore Bar Council had filed intra-court appeals against the Supreme Court’s constitutional bench ruling in the judges’ transfer and seniority case.
The petitioners argued that the ruling was contrary to the Constitution and established judicial principles, maintaining that there is a recognised procedure for determining judges’ seniority and that the president cannot be directed to make such determinations. They requested the annulment of the June 19 order and suspension of the bench’s decision, along with subsequent measures taken under it, until the appeals are decided.