Pakistani Lawyers Challenge Verdict on Judge Transfers

The Lahore High Court Bar Association and Lahore Bar Association have filed petitions in the Pakistani Supreme Court, contesting a June 19 ruling that validated the transfer of three judges to the Islamabad High Court. They argue the decision breaches constitutional principles and enables executive interference in judicial matters.

In a significant legal development, the Lahore High Court Bar Association and Lahore Bar Association have moved the Pakistani Supreme Court, disputing a decision by a constitutional bench that upheld the transfer of three judges to the Islamabad High Court, as reported by Dawn. Senior lawyers Hamid Khan and Muhammad Waqar Rana submitted intra-court appeals on Wednesday, seeking to overturn the contentious June 19 ruling.

This legal challenge follows a similar petition filed by five Islamabad High Court judges who questioned the same verdict, asserting that the court's narrow three-to-two majority decision was flawed. The verdict deemed the transfer of judges from different high courts lawful under the Constitution, prompting significant legal debate.

Adding complexity to the case, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan appointed Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar as the permanent chief justice of the IHC, with the oath-taking ceremony held on July 8. The petitioners, however, argue that the June 19 verdict failed to address a crucial constitutional issue—the requirement for transferred judges to take a new oath before assuming office in the IHC.

According to the petition, the transferred judges did not comply with this constitutional obligation, rendering their appointments legally untenable. The appeal further criticizes the majority judgement for allowing executive interference in judicial independence by enabling procedural corrections by the executive branch, specifically President Asif Ali Zardari, concerning the February 1 notification.

The petitioners contend that the ruling is unlawful, lacking jurisdiction, and should be declared void. They claim that actions taken by the Judicial Commission, following this ruling regarding IHC appointments, are unconstitutional. The appeal stresses the necessity of interpreting constitutional provisions holistically to protect core values, particularly judicial independence from executive influence.

(With inputs from agencies.)