Petition filed in SC against IHC Chief Justice’s administrative authority

ISLAMABAD: Five judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) have filed a constitutional petition in the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 184(3), challenging the scope of administrative powers exercised by the IHC Chief Justice, ARY News reported.

In their plea, the judges have made the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court as well as the State of Pakistan respondents. The petition argues that a judge cannot be stopped from performing judicial functions through a high court order, and such action is only permissible under Article 209 of the Constitution.

The judges have requested the Supreme Court of Pakistan to declare that the Chief Justice cannot curtail the judicial powers of fellow judges through administrative authority, nor can ongoing cases be transferred to other benches without lawful justification. They further contended that the Chief Justice cannot remove available judges from the court roster arbitrarily.

According to the petition, bench formation must be carried out strictly in accordance with rules framed under Article 202 of the Constitution. The judges have also sought annulment of notifications issued by the IHC’s administrative committees on February 3 and July 15, declaring them beyond legal jurisdiction.

The petition further argues that the recent rules of the Islamabad High Court are unlawful and should be struck down. It also states that under Article 199, the High Court cannot issue a writ against itself.

Also Read: SC judges write letter to CJP over rule-making in Pakistan

Earlier, four judges of the Supreme Court sent another letter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, raising concerns over the procedure for approving new rules.

The judges, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, Justice Muneeb Akhtar, Justice Ayesha Malik, and Justice Athar Minallah, objected to the method of rules approval in their letter, noting that the proposals were never presented before a full court of Pakistan’s Supreme Court.

According to the letter, the full court meeting received a one-point agenda, which only mentioned resolving difficulties arising from the new rules. The judges argued that attending the meeting was pointless until their primary objections were addressed.

The judges emphasized that rules in Pakistan’s Supreme Court are formulated under the Constitution, and such constitutional procedures cannot be bypassed through circulation. They questioned why a meeting was called to amend rules that were not presented in a full court session, calling the process “unnecessarily procedural and irregular.”