ISLAMABAD:
There has been a tug of war at the Islamabad High Court (IHC) since the transfer of three judges from other high courts, and the capital’s high court now appears visibly divided into two camps.
The clash among IHC judges is expected to intensify as Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, who was one of the three transferred judges, has replaced Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz with Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas as the “competent authority” to hear harassment complaints.
This replacement took place after Justice Saman initiated an inquiry under the Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace Acton a complaint filed by lawyer Imaan Mazari against Chief Justice Dogar himself. Justice Saman had already constituted an inquiry committee comprising Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Tahir, and herself.
Imaan Mazari filed the complaint after her altercation with the chief justice during the hearing of a case on September 11. Imaan has also approached the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), seeking the removal of the IHC chief justice on grounds of misconduct.
Meanwhile, a division bench led by Justice Dogar is set to hear a petition today (Tuesday) challenging the appointment of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri for allegedly holding an invalid LLB degree. The petition was filed by Advocate Mian Daud.
Lawyers are questioning whether a quo warranto petition is maintainable against a sitting judge.
Justice Dogar’s transfer to the IHC was challenged by five judges, including Justice Jahangiri. They question whether it is not a conflict of interest for the IHC chief justice to hear the matter himself.
The discretionary powers of the chief justice of Pakistan to form benches were regulated through the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023. However, the concept of “the master of the roster” still prevails in the high courts, especially the IHC.
Here, two judges have been excluded from single benches while the senior puisne judge, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, has not been included in any division bench for a long time.
The current government had expressed displeasure over a letter written last year by six IHC judges, who had sought guidance from the SJC regarding interference by executive agencies in judicial functions.
Former Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa was also reportedly unhappy with that letter.
In November last year, the government passed the 26th Constitutional Amendment that sought to control the superior judiciary. Although the amendment did not directly affect the IHC’s functioning, it enhanced executive influence over the appointment and elevation of superior court judges.
Subsequently, the government succeeded in appointing two additional judges to the IHC and also transferred to it three judges from other high courts, affecting the seniority of the existing judges.
Interestingly, the transfers have already been endorsed by a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, which is yet to issue its detailed judgment in the case. The government ultimately achieved its prime objective by appointing Justice Dogar also as the IHC chief justice.
Since his appointment, high-profile cases have not been listed before senior judges, and intra-court appeals have been entertained against their interim orders. Many lawyers now argue that those who endorsed the transfer of judges to the IHC are responsible for the ongoing turmoil within the court.
