SC decision on transfer of judges to IHC challenged
The Lahore Bar Association, Lahore High Court Bar Association on Wednesday filed intra court appeals (ICA) against the five-judge verdict under Section 5 of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, read with Article 184(3) of the Constitution.
The petitioners prayed that the impugned order passed by the constitutional bench dated 19-06-2025 be set aside and allow the constitution petition No27/2025.
The Constitution Bench on June 19, 2025 by majority of 3 to 2 held that transfer of judges under Article 200 is within the framework of the Constitution, and transfer (permanently or temporarily) cannot be construed as a fresh appointment.
The IHC five judges – Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan, Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad High Court Bar Associations had filed the petitions against the transfer of three judges namely, Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar from Lahore High Court (LHC), Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro from Sindh High Court (SHC), and Justice Muhammad Asif from Balochistan High Court (BHC) under Article 200 (1) of the Constitution.
The apex court without upsetting the notification of transfer of judges in the IHC remanded the matter of seniority to the President of Pakistan to determine the seniority after examining/vetting the service record of the transferee judges as soon as possible, including the question of whether the transfer is on a permanent or temporary basis.
The petitioners contended that the impugned order is against the constitution, law and all rules of fairness and thus void, without jurisdiction, coram non judice, having been passed without lawful authority and is thus of no legal effect.
They submitted that all orders passed, actions taken, notifications issued, including the determination of seniority of judges and subsequent proceedings of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) in relation to the appointment of the Chief Justice of the IHC are all void and unconstitutional and of no legal effect.
The said order and the notifications and the appointments were purportedly made in pursuance of the directions given the impugned order. It is the case of the Appellant that the impugned order is unconstitutional and void and thus all orders and actions taken in pursuance thereof are also void and unconstitutional and of no legal effect.
They stated that a constitutional document is to be read as a whole to understand the underlying constitutional values, principles and objectives.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
20 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Rosie O'Donnell laughs off Trump's illegal threat to revoke her citizenship
Former President Donald Trump has sparked controversy once again by threatening to revoke the U.S. citizenship of comedian and television host Rosie O'Donnell, calling her a 'threat to humanity.' The remarks, posted on Trump's social media platform Truth Social on July 12, were widely condemned as unconstitutional and legally baseless. -TruthSocial. 'Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship,' Trump wrote. 'She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her. GOD BLESS AMERICA!' O'Donnell, 63, relocated to Ireland earlier this year after Trump's return to the presidency. In a TikTok video from March, she explained she was pursuing Irish citizenship due to her heritage and to protect her family, particularly her autistic son, amid political turmoil in the U.S. Legal experts swiftly denounced Trump's threat. Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, described the statement as 'coercive expatriation' and 'patently unconstitutional.' Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, affirmed that 'the president has no authority to take away the citizenship of a native-born U.S. citizen.' The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the country and forbids the government from abridging their rights. In response, O'Donnell issued a series of strong rebuttals across social media. On Instagram, she posted a photo of Trump with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and criticized Trump's leadership and values. 'You want to revoke my citizenship? Go ahead and try, King Joffrey with a tangerine spray tan,' she wrote, referencing a villain from Game of Thrones. Speaking to RTÉ Radio, O'Donnell dismissed the threat, saying she is 'the latest in a long list of artists, activists and celebrities to be threatened' by Trump. Despite the escalating feud, she emphasized that her move to Ireland was motivated by a desire for safety and decency for her family. Her response has been in the highest comedic spirits, her instagram feed shows how shes been cracking jokes in the face of an adversity.
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
PTI expels five MNAs for backing 26th amendment, seeks disqualification
Listen to article The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) on Sunday formally expelled five of its National Assembly members for defying party directions and voting in favour of the 26th Constitutional Amendment — a move the party termed a 'flagrant breach of oath, loyalty, and parliamentary discipline.' The expulsions were confirmed through formal notifications issued by PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar Ali Khan. The lawmakers — Aurangzeb Khan Khichi, Zahoor Elahi, Usman Ali, Mubarak Zeb, and Muhammad Ilyas Chaudhry — were elected on PTI tickets and, according to the party, had pledged to uphold its parliamentary stance. An official PTI statement said the party's parliamentary meeting on September 2, 2024, had unanimously decided to oppose the 26th Amendment at all stages. These instructions were submitted to the Speaker of the National Assembly on September 5 for record. However, on October 21, the five lawmakers voted in favour of the bill, enabling the government to pass it with 225 votes — just one above the required 224. Following the vote, PTI issued show-cause notices to the MNAs on November 5, asking why they should not be disqualified for defection and breach of party discipline under Articles 62 and 63. A hearing committee was formed but none of the lawmakers responded or appeared. The party further alleged that the MNAs had joined another parliamentary party by taking seats on the treasury benches and attending its meetings, which it says constitutes formal defection under constitutional provisions. Read More: Gandapur says Imran Khan ready for talks with decision-makers 'You are hereby declared to have violated your commitment, oath, and loyalty to the party,' the notification read. 'You voted in favour of the 26th Constitutional Amendment Bill, 2024, and by conduct have joined another parliamentary party. You are therefore expelled from the party forthwith.' The PTI leadership has also requested the Election Commission of Pakistan to initiate proceedings for the disqualification of the five MNAs under Article 63A of the Constitution. The five MNAs had voted in favour of the 26th Constitutional Amendment Bill, which enabled the government to secure 225 votes — one above the 224 required for passage. The 26th Amendment introduced significant changes to Pakistan's judicial structure, including revisions to the process of judicial appointments, the tenure of the Chief Justice, and the composition of the Judicial Commission.
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Express Tribune
SJC disposes of 19 misconduct complaints
The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) on Saturday disposed of 19 complaints filed against various high and apex courts' justices under Article 209. It also decided to defer proceedings on five other complaints lodged by different individuals. The SJCthe constitutional forum that can hold superior court judges accountablemet at the Supreme Court in Islamabad under the chairmanship of the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP), Yahya Afridi. SC's Justice Munib Akhtar, Lahore High Court (LHC) Chief Justice Aalia Neelum and Sindh High Court (SHC) Chief Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar attended the meeting. SC's senior puisne judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah also participated in the meeting through video link. According to sources, the council deliberated on the suggestion of CJP Afridi to announce names of the judges against whom complaints were disposed of. The SJC later decided to keep those names confidential. The Supreme Court's press release also did not specify which judges the five deferred complaints are against as well as the nature of the 19 resolved complaints. The council also approved the proposed draft of the Supreme Judicial Council Secretariat Service Rules 2025. However, it decided that the proposed amendments to the inquiry procedures and code of conduct required further consideration from legal and drafting perspectives. Article 209 of the Constitution deals with the composition and functions of the SJC.
