Latest news with #IslamabadHighCourt
Business Recorder
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Now district judges will hear civil appeals, declares IHC
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC), Friday, ruled that instead of the high court, district judges would hear the civil appeals after the Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2025. A division bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Azam Khan and Justice Inaam Amin Minhas, declared that in a civil reference titled, 'The Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 2025 and Transfer of Appeals from Islamabad High Court to District Judges (East) & (West), Islamabad, in pursuance thereof.' The IHC office moved the instant reference and attached a list of cases pertaining to Regular First Appeals filed against the decrees or orders passed by learned civil judges working under the administrative control of the IHC. The list contained 1594 RFAs, which is stated to be tentative. The questions formulated in the reference were included whether amendment made in Section 18 is a matter of procedure and had retrospective effect? and whether High Court can transfer pending appeals to the District Judges on its own motion without notice to the parties to the lis? Justice Azam, who authored the judgment, said that the power of High Court delegated under Section 24, CPC, is further fortified in the judgment passed in Khan Muhammad and others Vs. Ishtiaq Hussain reported as 1987 SCMR 1482. He maintained, 'A statute amending the forum for institution of appeal or that of the Appellate Court during the pendency of the lis will obviously have retrospective effect unless otherwise provided by the subsequent Act. Prior to the instant amendment, appeals against interim orders passed by Civil Judges, where the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction exceeded Rs. 2,500,000/-, were being filed in the High Court.' 'However, it is clarified that now any order passed by a Civil Judge during pendency of the proceedings is appealable before the District Judge. The Office shall also transmit those appeals filed against interim orders to the respective District Judges,' said the IHC. It continued that there is no opposition to this legal proposition or to the course adopted from either side. Resultantly, all the appeals filed against decrees or orders passed by learned Civil Judges, including but not limited to those listed in the annexed list, are hereby ordered to be remitted to the learned District Judges of the respective Divisions, who may entrust the same to the Additional District Judges in the ordinary distribution of work. It further said that given the fact that these appeals pertain to the year 2013, the district judges are expected to place the older appeals on fast track and dispose of the same as per guidelines and policy on the subject. The bench also said that the M.I.T. of this Court is also directed to oversee the distribution of the oldest appeals proactively and ensure their expeditious disposal, and submit periodic reports to this Court. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Govt continues to score legal victories
After the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the government has got another major victory on Thursday as the constitutional bench endorsed the transfer of three judges from different high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC). The government's legal team must be jubilant that in view of the majority order, Justice Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar will continue as acting chief justice of the IHC, which is seen as crucial for the executive authority. The majority order will further frustrate the five IHC judges, who have been facing a tough time since writing a letter to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) regarding interference of agencies in the judicial functions, particularly on matters related to the PTI. A senior government functionary admits that the 26th amendment is the outcome of the six IHC judges' letter. Constitutional Bench (CB) was created through the 26th constitutional amendment. The real purpose of the amendment was to control the superior judiciary for the stability of the current political set-up. The present government doesn't want that courts should give any substantive relief to the incarcerated former prime minister as he is perceived as a threat to the system. Since November last year, legal circles were keenly watching the outcome of three cases that they considered would determine how far the judiciary could go to assert its independence. The constitutional bench did not disappoint the government as two of the cases had been decided in its favour. Firstly, trial of civilians in the military courts have been endorsed by the CB. Now, the government initiative regarding the transfer of three judges to the IHC has also been endorsed by the constitutional bench led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. It is interesting to note that the CB is not taking up petitions against the 26th constitutional amendment. If things stand the way as they are, it is no surprise that the government may get another victory in the reserved seats case soon. The chance that the July 12 order regarding the allocation of reserved seats will survive is very low. If the CB sets aside the decision, then the government will get a two-thirds majority in parliament. Moreover, in view of the "satisfactory performance", the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) by a majority vote extended the tenure of present CB judges until November 30. Unlike the past practice, CJP Yahya Afridi also voted in favour of giving an extension to the CB judges' tenure. Earlier, he was advocating that all SC judges should be included in the CB. The government has also been successful in appointing like-minded judges in the superior judiciary. Now, it would easily manage to appoint like-minded' chief justices in the high courts on July 1. Legal opinion Abdul Moiz Jaferii advocate says that the short order in the judges transfer case is disappointing. The majority has focused on the process of transfer itself being acceptable without dilating upon the particular transfer to Islamabad that was effected, how it was effected and what it aimed to achieve. Jaferii states that the order completely ignores the transfer of judges being expressly temporary in nature by the very language of the Constitution. It proceeds to validate such transfers on the premise of them being safeguarded by needing input from within the judiciary. "It then allows the president to redo the transfer and make clear the period of transfer and the seniority of the judges themselves, effectively opposing the very basis on which the transfers were validated: that this process was within the judiciary and insulated." He states that it is a bizzare reading of a plain constitutional premise. It ignores completely the scheme of appointment envisaged in Article 175A. And if one were to count the peculiar circumstances leading to this petition, completely ignored in the majority order but expressly considered by the minority, its reasoning becomes obvious. The minority opinion, other than the roundabout poetry at the end; is constitutionally sound", he adds. A former law officer says that the majority has taken a literal view. "It is premised on good faith and institution oriented bona fide exercise within the judiciary by three chief justices. If all three CJs act independently and in the interest of the institution, there should be no problem. Perhaps this was the reason Article 200 was inserted and it is working well in India. But if they don't act independently, this will become an instrument of coercion and silencing some judges, as in the present case. The majority has looked purely on law but not considered ground realities and facts." He says that as in many recent important constitutional cases, emotional advocacy and rhetoric continues instead of calm and cogent arguments. It is showing results every day more so when independent minded judges have already been sidelined and disarmed. At least the majority has left the question of temporary or permanent appointment. There is some contradiction as one the one hand the whole exercise is within the judiciary yet the matter has been sent to President alone. The whole exercise should be ordered to be conducted again but now the then CJ, IHC has gone. Who will give input on temporary or permanent status these judges, he adds. Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar advocate has stated that the majority decision is constitutionally valid, well-founded, and aligned with the spirit and intent of the constitution. He emphasised that the 3-2 majority judgment rightly affirms that under Article 200(1) of the Constitution, such transfers are permissible with the concurrence of the President, Chief Justices of the concerned high courts, and consent of the transferee judges. The court held that these conditions were conditionally met and found no mala fide on the part of the President. He noted that the president had issued a notification on February 1, 2024, under Article 200(1), transferring Justice Dogar, Justice Sumro, and Justice Muhammad Asif to the Islamabad High Court. Their inter-se seniority was later determined by then Chief Justice Aamer Farooq on 11th February 2025. However, this seniority order was challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 184(3). Explaining further, he said Article 194 makes no requirement for a second oath when a judge is transferred between High Courts, as the oath is to the Constitution itself — not to any specific court or jurisdiction. This is a principle recognized across other constitutional systems as well. Hafiz Ahsaan added that Article 200(1) does not specify whether a transfer must be temporary or permanent. Following the judgment, it now falls to the President to determine the nature of the transfers. If deemed temporary, no further seniority determination is needed; if permanent, the President must determine seniority based solely on the judges' original appointment dates. He stressed that under Article 200(3), the service terms of a judge cannot be adversely altered upon transfer, thereby preserving their rank, privileges, and entitlements. He further observed that the President, as directed by the Court, must independently determine seniority without relying on advice from the federal government. If the President declares the transfers permanent, and seniority is accordingly based on initial appointment, Justice Dogar may emerge as the senior-most among the three — qualifying him for consideration as Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court under Article 175A through the Judicial Commission of Pakistan. Contrasting with India's centralized seniority list, he noted that Pakistan's Constitution entrusts each High Court to determine seniority based on initial appointment — a practice also followed in the UK, US, Canada, and Australia. Hafiz Ahsaan while concluding said the 3-2 judgment is constitutionally sustainable and reinforces the legal structure under articles 200, 194, and 175A. The president's forthcoming decision will help shape a lasting constitutional precedent on judicial seniority and the limits of presidential authority in such matters.
Express Tribune
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Supreme Court looks at seniority under Article 200
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned until Thursday (today) the hearing of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge transfer case. A five-member constitutional bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, presided over the hearing. During proceedings, the Advocate General for Punjab advanced his arguments, stating that West Pakistan was made a single unit in 1955 through the Pakistan Governor General Order. As a result, all high court-level courts were consolidated into one, and a seniority list was compiled based on the judges' appointment dates. However, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that the situation in the present case was different, as no judicial formation or dissolution had taken place in connection with the transfer of judges to the IHC. In response, the advocate general clarified that his point was only to illustrate that judges' prior service and transfers had historically been accepted. Justice Afghan observed that the central question in the case is whether the judge's transfer is to be considered permanent or temporary under Article 200 of the Constitution. He further inquired why a judge ranked 15th on the seniority list was transferred while 14 judges senior to him were overlooked.
Business Recorder
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
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
Express Tribune
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
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.
