IHC judge disputes legality of new court rules
Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge Justice Babar Sattar has raised objections to the newly notified Islamabad High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2025, asserting they lack legal authority as they were not approved by a full court.
In a letter addressed to all ten IHC judges, Justice Sattar stated that he was not aware of any full court meeting convened to consider the enactment of the Rules or the repeal of the rules.
"The Rules are, therefore, devoid of legal authority and have been issued in breach of the requirements of Article 208 as well as those of the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, as adopted by the Islamabad High Court," he argued.
The letter, along with a copy of the new rules, has been submitted to the Supreme Court during hearings on a petition filed by five IHC judges challenging the transfer of three judges from other high courts to the IHC.
Justice Sattar urged his fellow judges to undertake corrective measures without delay, stressing the potential consequences for IHC staff.
He noted that if rules are challenged or it otherwise emerges that the high court has itself purported to enact rules in breach of requirements of Article 208 of the Constitution and the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, "it will cause great embarrassment to this high court".
He added that it would also prejudice "the rights and entitlements of the employees of this Court".
He noted having received S.R.O. 585(1)/2025 dated March 25, 2025, which was published in the Gazette of Pakistan on April 10, 2025, notifying the Islamabad High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2025.
"The preamble states that the Rules have been enacted in exercise of authority under Article 208 of the Constitution, which says that the Supreme Court, the Federal Shariat Court and the Islamabad High Court, with the approval of the President and a High Court, with the approval of the Governor concerned, may make rules providing for the appointment by the Court of officers and servants of the Court and for their terms and conditions of employment."
Justice Sattar contended that constitutional authority under Article 208 rests with the full high court.
"The authority under Article 208 of the Constitution is vested in the High Court which is defined in Article 192 of the Constitution as consisting of a Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court. The power created by Article 208 can neither be delegated nor be exercised in any manner other than by the High Court itself i.e. all Judges of the High Court in a collegiate manner."
He further pointed to legal limitations regarding the delegation of such powers, noting that it was a settled proposition that discretionary authority cannot be sub-delegated unless the law which creates such authority provides for its further delegation.
Justice Sattar added that no such delegation exists under the existing provisions.
"In any event, the power under Article 208 of the constitution has not been delegated as is evident from the provisions of Rule 5(2) of Chapter 10, Part A of Volume-V of the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, adopted by the Islamabad High Court."
He also cited case law on the matter.
"The manner in which the High Court can exercise authority in terms of Article 208 of the Constitution has also been explained in Muhammad Shabbir vs. Registrar, Islamabad High Court and another (Judicial Service Appeal No. 03 of 2026)," he added.
Meanwhile, another IHC judge, Justice Saman Riffat, also submitted her own letter to the SC.
In her May 5 letter to the IHC registrar, Justice Riffat refers to the earlier notification regarding the Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025, published via Gazette Notification No. S.R.O.169(1)/2025 dated February 18, 2025.
"As the letter dated 25-4-2025 informed her that the Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025 have been published vide gazette Notification No.S.R.O.169(1)/2025 dated 18.02.2025."
She referred to previous correspondence contradicting the registrar's claim.
"Please recall that vide Letter dated 11-3-2025 you were informed that contrary to your assertion the Rules & Orders of the Lahore High Court. Lahore were in fact adopted by the Honourable Chief Justice and Honourable Judges of this Court vide Notification No. 354/Legis/IHC dated 28-08-2019 and not by the Administration Committee. You were directed to provide all the amendments that have been made to the Rules & Orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore by the Administration Committees of this Court as claimed by you as well as the date on which the purported Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025 were framed and the names of the Members of the Administration Committee who framed the same."
She further noted the absence of a reply.
"Neither such information nor copy of the Rules has been provided despite lapse of 10 days since your last letter confirming their publication," she added.
Justice Riffat reiterates her demand.
"Once again you are directed to provide the information and documentation as well as the purported Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025," she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Punjab Assembly Speaker suspends 26 opposition members
The Speaker of the Punjab Assembly Malik Ahmed Khan on Saturday suspended 26 members of the opposition party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), for disrupting Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz's speech and causing chaos in the assembly session, according to Aaj News. The Assembly Secretariat confirmed that the suspension was issued under Rule 210(3) of the Assembly Rules, barring the members from attending the next 15 assembly sittings. During the session, opposition members shouted slogans, engaged in physical shoving, and tore official documents, violating the assembly's rules of conduct. The Speaker 'condemned' their behavior, saying such disorderly conduct damages the dignity and discipline of the House. He acknowledged that while protesting is a right of assembly members, it must follow the limits set by the Constitution and parliamentary procedures. The Speaker emphasized that maintaining order in the assembly is essential and will be strictly enforced. The suspended lawmakers include Malik Fahad Masood, Muhammad Tanveer Aslam, SSyed Riffat Mehmood, Yasir Mahmood, Kaleem Ullah, Ansar Iqbal, Ali Asif, Zulfiqar Ali Shah, Ahmad Mujtaba Chaudhary, Imtiaz Mehmood, Ali Imtiaz, Muhammad Ejaz Shafi, Sajjad Ahmad, and others. The suspension came after the opposition's loud protests disrupted the assembly during the Chief Minister's address, forcing the Speaker to take action to uphold the assembly's dignity and ensure smooth proceedings.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
CDA to be dissolved, all powers to shift to Metropolitan Corporation: IHC
Listen to article The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has ordered the federal government to dissolve the Capital Development Authority (CDA). In a written verdict, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani ruled that the CDA has no legal authority to impose taxes. The court stated that if any individual or institution has been charged by the CDA under the names of 'direct access' or 'right of way' charges, such amounts must be refunded. The federal government has been directed to begin and complete the process of dissolving the CDA. Justice Kayani further ruled that, after dissolution, all powers and assets of the CDA should be transferred to the Metropolitan Corporation. The rights of Islamabad's citizens must be safeguarded under the law. The decision came in response to a petition filed by the Tijji Housing Society and its residents. In the judgment, the court nullified the CDA's SRO (Statutory Regulatory Order) dated 9 June 2015 concerning right of way and access charges. All actions taken by the CDA under this SRO were declared illegal, and the court ordered that any money collected under it must be refunded. Read: Temporary CDA staff regularised The judgment observed that the CDA Ordinance was originally enacted for the establishment of the federal government and for carrying out developmental work. However, with new legislation and governance structures in place, the ordinance has lost its practical relevance. The court concluded that the purpose of establishing the CDA has now been fulfilled and that the government should proceed with its dissolution. It also directed that the administration of Islamabad must remain transparent and accountable after the transfer of powers. Additionally, the verdict stated that all administrative, regulatory, and municipal functions in Islamabad fall under the Local Government Act, which provides for governance through elected representatives. Under this law, taxes cannot be imposed without the approval of the local government. Therefore, the CDA has no legal authority to impose taxes. It is worth noting that the CDA had imposed right-of-access taxes on petrol pumps and CNG stations, and direct access taxes on private housing societies with roads connecting to main highways, all of which were challenged in the High Court.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Supreme Court hands Trump 'giant win'
In a 5-4 unsigned opinion the top US court said that some of New York's restrictions violated the First Amendment's protection of the free exercise of religion. PHOTO: AFP The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday by curbing the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding his policies but it left unresolved the issue of whether he can limit birthright citizenship. The Republican president welcomed the ruling and said his administration can now seek to proceed with numerous policies such as his executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship that he said "have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis". "We have so many of them. I have a whole list," Trump told reporters at the White House. The court's 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's birthright citizenship order go into effect immediately, directing lower courts that blocked it to reconsider the scope of their orders. The ruling also did not address its legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling thus raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually taking effect in some parts of the country. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing numerous nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The three judges in the birthright citizenship cases found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote.
