The IHC Judges called for a meeting to discuss the matter of the transfer of sensitive cases.

A bold stand by two Judges:

Islamabad High Court (IHC) Judges showed their concern over the role of the Acting Chief Justice in the transfer of sensitive cases. The cases are mainly of blasphemy. Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan asserted that the acting Chief Justice had overstepped his legal limits by shifting cases from one bench to another without proper justification. They do not just question the ruling but also ask for a meeting to give clarity on the ruling.

Controversy over the case:

The Acting Chief Justice transferred the cases from a single bench to a division bench. The two judges of the IHC reviewed this decision and found no legal basis for the move. They pointed out that the cases were not connected. Moreover, the cases are not of the same party or consist of similar incidents. That is why there is no legal ground for the transfer of these cases. The judges described its sudden transfer as unjustified and disruptive to the judicial process.

Also Read: Judicial Clash Over IHC Tribunal Reconstitution

Judicial guidelines:

The Judges gave legal grounding for their arguments. They particularly mentioned Lahore High Court Rules and Orders (Volume V). As per these rules, the Chief Justice is responsible for assigning judges to benches. The Deputy Registrar is responsible for assigning individual cases to benches. In addition, case assignments must follow specific criteria, such as having a common cause of action, involving similar legal matters, or being part of the same transaction. In short, there should be a strong legal reason to transfer the cases.

Legal precedents support the Judges’ stance:

Judges strengthen their argument by referring back to the previous cases. They mentioned the 2001 Supreme Court Case (PLD 2001 SC 568) involving Asif Ali Zardari vs The State. In that ruling, the court had emphasized that a judge should continue hearing a case unless the judge recused themselves due to personal reasons or there is a clear legal bias or conflict of interest. The example has strengthened the idea that a judge’s authority over a case should not be interrupted arbitrarily.

Clear Judicial procedures:

Judges, including Justice Kayani and Justice Ejaz, have asked for a transparent judicial inquiry. That is why they asked for a meeting to discuss these matters on a legal framework to avoid any future conflict. They also stressed that special benches should only see case transfers with explicit judicial approval.

Criticism of the Acting Chief Justice’s office:

The Chief Justice was criticised for deciding the transfer cases matter without any legal grounds. In addition, the petitioner judges saw that the CJ’s office did not give any proper list of the due blasphemy cases. The sudden removal of ongoing cases went against the principles of fair judicial conduct. The criticism shows internal disagreement within the court.

Bigger implications for the Judicial system:

The court members were conflicted, facing the legality of the decision in the transfer of cases. However, beyond their disagreement, it shows or opens the doors for the members to speak or stand to uphold transparency. However, there needs to be bigger implications in the Judicial system, like the transfers should follow established legal routes, and even those at the top of the judiciary must act within their defined legal boundaries.