Five judges of the Islamabad High Court have approached the Supreme Court against the powers and actions of the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court.
Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Saman Rafat, and Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan have filed separate petitions in the Supreme Court.
In the petitions of Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Tariq Jahangiri, and Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan, the demand is the same.
In the petitions, the judges have pleaded to the Supreme Court that administrative powers cannot be used to weaken or override the judicial powers of the High Court judges.
It was further stated that the Chief Justice of the High Court is not authorized to constitute new benches or transfer cases once a case has been assigned to a bench.
The petitions also stated that the Chief Justice cannot arbitrarily exclude available judges from the roster, nor can he use this power to relieve judges from judicial responsibilities.
The Supreme Court was also told that the formation of benches, transfer of cases, and issuance of the roster can only be done according to the rules framed with the approval of all judges of the High Court, under Article 202 and Article 192(1) of the Constitution.
The petitioners further requested that the formation of benches, roster rules of the High Court, and decisions related to transfer of cases cannot be solely under the Chief Justice’s authority, and that the principle of “Master of the Roster” has already been abolished in Supreme Court judgments.
It was also stated in the petitions that the administrative committees formed through notifications issued on 3rd February and 15th July, and their actions, are based on legal malice, are illegal and null and void.
The court was requested to declare all actions of these notifications and committees as unlawful.
It was further said that the approval of the Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules 2025 through an illegally formed administrative committee, and issuance of a notification without prior approval of the High Court, is a violation of Article 192(1) and 202 of the Constitution, and its endorsement in September is also unconstitutional and ineffective.
The judges pleaded that the Supreme Court should direct the Islamabad High Court to exercise effective supervision and oversight over the district judiciary, as stated in Article 203 of the Constitution, so that every High Court can maintain supervision and control over its subordinate courts.
The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to declare that a High Court cannot issue any writ for itself under Article 199. Article 199 relates to the jurisdiction of the High Court.
They further stated that a division bench of the High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals against interim orders of a single bench, nor can it exercise such control over the proceedings of a single bench as if it were a subordinate court or tribunal.
“Interim order” refers to a temporary decision given in an ongoing case.
The petitioners told the Supreme Court that a High Court judge can only be restrained from judicial work under Article 209, and it is not appropriate to file a writ of quo warranto to remove a judge from office.
Article 209 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Judicial Council to investigate the conduct and capacity of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Concluding their statement, the petitioners requested the Supreme Court to grant any other relief deemed appropriate according to the circumstances of the case.
