The law ministry transferred three judges from the high courts of Sindh, Lahore, and Balochistan to the Islamabad High Court on Saturday amid concerns raised by five judges in the federal capital.

The three judges who are transferred to IHC are: Lahore High Court judge Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, Sindh High Court judge Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro, and Balochistan High Court judge Justice Muhammad Asif.

The development comes a day after five judges from the IHC sent a letter to the chief justices of the Supreme Court and various high courts, urging them to oppose reports suggesting that a transferred judge could be appointed to lead the IHC.

The letter, which was addressed to Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi and the chief justices of the Islamabad, Sindh, and Lahore high courts, emphasized the need to prevent such transfers. It was signed by IHC’s senior puisne judge Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, along with Justices Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Saman Rafat Imtiaz. Justices Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb were also mentioned but did not sign the letter.

In their correspondence, the judges called on the chief justices to advise President Asif Ali Zardari against allowing such reported transfers, as there is currently no framework for a unified federal judicial service in Pakistan under the existing constitutional structure.

“The high courts are independent and autonomous. The justices who are elevated to a particular high court, take oath, under Article 194 of the Constitution, with respect a particular province, or for the purposes of the IHC, with respect to the Islamabad Capital Territory. Since the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution in 2010, and during the times of political democratic governments in Pakistan, there has been no precedent of permanent appointments to the high courts through the invocation of Article 200 of the Constitution,” the letter said.

A recent statement has highlighted that the 26th Constitutional Amendment did not establish a formal transfer mechanism for high court judges, contrary to initial proposals made during the amendment’s drafting.

Also, read this

Judicial Commission of Pakistan recommends 10 additional judges for Peshawar High Court

IHC suspends notification requiring ISPR permission for defence analysts

Judicial convention sought over alleged interference of spy agencies in judiciary

Despite significant changes to the judicial framework under the amendment, the legislature did not permit permanent transfers to be recognized constitutionally. It was noted that “Article 200” remained unchanged, preserving the concept of each court as separate and autonomous within the federal system.

The letter emphasised that the alleged transfer of a Lahore High Court judge was reportedly linked to considerations for a top position at the Islamabad High Court, asserting that such an action “cannot be justified under the Constitution.”

Furthermore, it argued that any transferred judge would need to take a new oath under Article 194 of the Constitution to serve in a different high court. This would mean their seniority would reset based on the date of the new oath for their role at the IHC.

The letter also referenced a prior ruling by the Supreme Court, which determined that a judge’s seniority is based on their oath-taking date at the high court where they will serve.