SC dismisses plea seeking transfer of May 9 cases

ISLAMABAD:  In a detailed four‐page written verdict, the Supreme Court has rejected the Punjab government’s request to transfer cases related to the May 9 incidents, ARY News reported.

The apex court’s decision emphasises that protecting judicial officers from administrative interference is a constitutional duty, thereby dismissing the petition as lacking sufficient merit.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted that the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court is conferred with authority under Article 203 to shield judicial officers from any undue administrative meddling.

The court further noted that the reference filed against the Anti-Terrorism Court judge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. This decisive judgment rejects the May 9 cases transfer petition and reinforces the established judicial independence of the courts.

The verdict also clarified those personal remarks, whether critical or complimentary, do not carry a binding effect on future judicial proceedings and cannot be used to alter accountability.

According to the court, comments on the conduct of state officials fall under the administrative domain of the Chief Justice and are not a sufficient basis for authorizing such a transfer.

Read More: Supreme Court Establishes Anti-Corruption Hotline

This explanation underlines once again that the May 9 cases transfer petition does not present a valid reason to shift cases based on mere opinions or unsubstantiated allegations.

Earlier, the Punjab government had filed a reference and petition against former Rawalpindi Anti-Terrorism Court Judge Ijaz Asif, seeking a case transfer.

However, the Lahore High Court had already dismissed both the reference and the transfer request on evidentiary grounds. Challenging that decision in the Supreme Court, the government’s appeal was decisively rebuffed; the court affirmed that refraining from further action on the transfer was entirely appropriate.

With this ruling, the May 9 cases transfer petition is effectively canceled, setting a firm precedent against administrative interference in judicial matters.

In light of this decision, further analysis has noted that similar measures have been implemented in connected cases to ensure rapid adjudication and the protection of legal integrity in the wake of the May 9 incidents.

Such developments continue to attract significant attention from legal experts and stakeholders, setting the stage for ongoing debates about the balance between administrative oversight and judicial autonomy.