ISLAMABAD:
Supreme Court judges are bound to obtain a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) from the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) for travelling abroad.
Recently, a Presidential Order has been promulgated by President Asif Ali Zardari, which is called as Supreme Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2025, wherein an amendment has been made in para 14 of President’s Order 2 of 1997.
The amended para 14 says that the CJP has been empowered to grant or refuse leave, within Pakistan, or to revoke or curtail leave already granted to the judges.
Following the amendment, a General Standing Order was issued by SC Registrar Muhammad Salim Khan, which says that as matter of settled principle, the whole time of a judge is at the disposal of the state/Supreme Court including leave, vacation and holidays, therefore, it has become essential to regulate the powers of the chief justice as through the SOPs.
The SOPs say that firstly, CJP shall exercise these powers with due diligence and in the interest of public service.
Secondly, all kinds of leave shall be sought in advance, supported by cogent reasons.
Thirdly, while proceeding abroad “No Objection Certificate” shall be sought from the Chief Justice of Pakistan.
Fourthly, a judge, while on leave/vacation, shall provide his current address and
contact details.
Lastly, only in case of official visits abroad, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be requested for necessary facilitation and protocol.
Lawyers are wondering about the issuance of new SOPs. One section of lawyers says that it is an attempt to control the judges, especially those who are questioning the present working of the judiciary at the events organized outside the country.
Former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar says that travel restrictions per se do not conflict with judicial independence provided they are purely administrative, applied fairly and operate within the judiciary’s internal framework, not under the executive control. In the instant case, the purpose seems to be supervisory, not administrative”, he adds
Khokhar states that it is potentially a tool for control and intimidation. Judicial independence means independence in decision-making, but judges’ travel restrictions can violate independence if permission is used selectively or punitively or under executive interference.”
“The amendment needs safeguards against abuse. The US and UK have no such restrictions. In India, permission is granted transparently, equally, and purely for administrative purposes. “In Pakistan, we have had a toxic history.
Travel restrictions were used to control judicial independence: Justice Mansoor Ali Shah was refused permission to travel to Saudi Arabia.
CJP Iftikhar Chaudhary and other Supreme Court judges were barred from travelling abroad. Judges’ obligation to share their travel plans and addresses abroad is a serious encroachment of their privacy”, he adds.
