Justice Babar objects to IHC Establishment Rules
ISLAMABAD: Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge Justice Babar Sattar raised objections to the newly notified Islamabad High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2025.
In the letter addressed to all 10 IHC judges, Justice Sattar asserted that they lack legal authority as they were not approved by a full court. He 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.
He added, '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.'
Justice Sattar said 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.'
The judge stated that he received SRO 585 1)/ 025 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.
He added the preamble stated 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 argued that constitutional authority under Article 208 rests with the full high court. He wrote, '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 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 Babar continued 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,' maintained the judge.
He also said, '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 mentioned, 'I am not aware of any full court meeting that was convened to consider the enactment of the Rules or to consider the repeal of the Islamabad High Court Establishment Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules. 2011.'
He urged the fellow judges that corrective action be undertaken immediately as the Rules will affect the rights and entitlements of employees of IHC.
The judge concluded that in the event that 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, other than prejudicing the rights and entitlements of the employees of this Court.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
5 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
5 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
13 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.
