ISLAMABAD:
Head of a constitutional bench (CB) of the apex court has observed that transfer of a judge from one high court to another is a process, which cannot be completed without the consent of all involved.
“The president has the authority to transfer a judge but the process can end if the concerned judge or the chief justice of his own high court or the chief justice of the high court where he is being transferred or the chief justice of Pakistan does not agree with it,” Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar noted.
Justice Mazhar was heading a five-member CB, hearing the petitions filed against transfer of three judges of provincial high courts to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) in February this year and the subsequent change in the capital’s high court’s seniority list.
Barrister Salahuddin, counsel for the five IHC judges who have challenged the transfer, continued his rebuttal arguments, asserting that Article 200 of the Constitution applies only to sub-section 3.
He argued that in civil service, a transfer from one department to another affects seniority, unlike in the judiciary where no deputation or merger of judges of two high courts takes place.
Punjab Advocate General Amjad Pervez also filed a miscellaneous application during the hearing.
Justice Salahuddin Panhwar inquired about the application, to which Pervez responded that he had submitted historical record of judicial transfers from 1947 to 1976 and acknowledged that while they weren not a party to the case, a notice under Rule 27-A had been issued to them. Justice Mazhar noted that the 27-A notice is specifically for becoming a party, and the advocate general should have followed the Attorney-General for Pakistan in presenting arguments.
After the completion of the rebuttal, the court directed other counsels representing the petitioners to conclude their arguments by Tuesday. The hearing was then adjourned until today.
