The Registrar Office of the Supreme Court returned the applications of five judges of the Islamabad High Court with objections.
According to sources, the Registrar Office of the Supreme Court rejected the five judges’ applications and objected that the applicant did not clarify which public interest question is involved in the applications. The applicant also did not specify which fundamental rights were affected for the scope of Article 184/3 to be invoked.
According to sources, the Registrar of the Supreme Court objected that the applicants filed applications under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 184/3 out of personal grudge, whereas the Supreme Court’s Zulfiqar Mehdi vs. PIA case does not allow filing applications under Article 184/3 on personal grievances.
According to sources, the objection stated that the components of the Article 184/3 application were not fulfilled; the judges neither stated solid grounds for filing the constitutional petition nor explained the parties for issuance of notices.
It is noteworthy that Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, and Justice Ijaz Ishaq Khan of the Islamabad High Court had filed separate applications in the Supreme Court.
In the applications, the judges requested the Supreme Court that administrative powers cannot be used to weaken or overpower the judicial powers of the High Court judges.
It was further stated that the Chief Justice of the High Court is not authorized to form new benches or transfer cases once a bench has already been assigned a case.
The applications also stated that the Chief Justice cannot exclude available judges from the roster at will, nor can this power be used to remove judges from judicial responsibilities.
The Supreme Court was also told that the formation of benches, transfer of cases, and issuance of rosters can only be done according to rules approved by all High Court judges under Articles 202 and 192(1) of the Constitution.
The applicants further requested that decision-making regarding bench formation, roster rules, and case transfers cannot be solely in the hands of the Chief Justice, and the principle of Master of the Roster has been abolished in Supreme Court rulings.
The applications also stated that the administrative committees formed and their actions through notifications issued on February 3 and July 15 are legally malicious, illegal, and void.
The court was requested to declare all these notifications and committee actions illegal.
