IHC Judges’ Seniority Dispute: Chief Justice Justifies Appointments

• The Islamabad High Court Judges filed a review petition over the transferred judges’ seniority ranking in the IHC from different high courts.
• The IHC Chief Justice gave justification for the revised seniority list.

Seniority dispute:

The five IHC judges, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, challenged the new ranking of the transferred judges from different high courts to the Islamabad High Court. They condemned and opposed the new ranking. Chief Justice Aamer Farooq of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has defended the revised seniority list of judges. He gave justifications in compliance with legal rules and laws. Moreover, he also gave an example from the Indian Supreme Court ruling, which clearly reflects the difference between transfer and appointment. 

Controversy over seniority rankings:

The notification regarding the transfer of judges, i.e. Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar from Lahore High Court (LHC), Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro from Sindh High Court and Justice Muhammad Asif from Balochistan High Court was issued. It was quite obvious in the notification that these judges would be transferred to IHC without affecting their seniority in their respective high courts. 

Also Read: Supreme Court Questions Distinctions In Military Trials Of Civilians

The IHC judges initially opposed the transfer of these judges. Later, they also questioned their seniority rankings in IHC. The five judges argued that transferred judges must take a new oath due to their transfer to the other high court.

Chief Justice’s ruling on seniority:

The Chief Justice of IHC, Justice Farooq, issued a detailed ruling on the matter. He analyzed the matter in the context of constitutional provisions and judicial precedents. Justice Farooq also analyzed Article 200 of the Constitution.

 As per this article, the Chief Justice has the right to transfer the judges from different high courts but only in accordance with legal laws and the transferred judge’s consent. The chief justice stated that transfers do not count as new appointments. He clarified that a judge’s seniority remains unchanged after a transfer.

No new oath is required for transfers:

The Chief Justice gave a ruling in which it is clear that the transferred judges do not need to take a new oath after transfer. He, however, stated that the oath would remain the same even after relocation to the new high court. Moreover, the judges’ previous seniority carries over to the new court. The chief justice supported his ruling with past judicial decisions. He referenced a key judgment from the Indian Supreme Court, which reaffirmed that transfers do not alter a judge’s seniority.

Constitutional framework on transfers:

Justice Farooq referred to Articles 194 and 200 of the Constitution. He highlighted that there is not a single mention in these constitutions that the relocation of the judges to the different high courts affects the seniority ranking of the judges in their previous high courts. He said that if the change in the seniority ranking matters, then it should be vivid and explicitly stated in these articles of the constitution. 

He emphasized that a judge’s tenure continues until retirement, elevation to the Supreme Court, removal, or death. The revised seniority list was, therefore, justified, as it followed constitutional principles.

Rejection of the seniority challenge:

The IHC Chief Justice nullified the challenge of the IHC judges based on constitutional provisions and legal precedents. He didn’t alter the seniority list and stated that the list accurately reflected the transfer of judges. The IHC registrar was directed to distribute copies of the ruling to the concerned judges.

Justice Babar Sattar’s objections:

Justice Babar Sattar raised further concerns. He questioned the legality of the February 3 seniority list and the inclusion of transferred judges in administrative committees. He strongly opposed Justice Soomro’s appointment to the Administration Committee.

He said that only the two most senior judges could be a part of the administration committee. He cited the clause mentioned in the Islamabad Judicial Service Rules that are based on the Punjab Judicial Service Rules. He argued that the Chief Justice didn’t follow the rule by appointing Justice Soomro, who ranks ninth in the seniority list.

However, a copy of Rule 2 shows a different requirement. The rule states: “The Administration Committee shall consist of seven judges. The Chief Justice and the Senior Puisne Judge shall be ex-officio members. The Chief Justice shall annually nominate the other five members of the Committee.”

As per this rule, the Chief Justice and the Senior Puisne Judge are the fixed members of the Committee, while the other five members are the only choice of the Chief Justice. However, the seniority dispute has raised legal debates.