The IHC tribunal judges declared that neither the President nor the Chief Justice had the authority to reconstitute the tribunal without legal justification.

Judges challenge tribunal changes:

The Islamabad High Court Judges challenged the spontaneous IHC tribunal reconstitution. The three IHC tribunal judges rejected the legality of the changes. The judges include Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, and Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan. They ruled that neither the acting chief justice nor the president had the power to dissolve or restructure the tribunal without legal justification.

The controversial tribunal reconstitution:

The issue emerged in the case of Additional District and Sessions Judge (AD&SJ) Mohammad Shabbir. He had challenged Judge Shahrukh Arjumand’s appointment and promotion to senior civil judge in Islamabad and his later elevation to district and sessions judge.

Also Read: Civilians In Military Trials: National Security vs. Legal Rights

President Asif Ali Zardari issued a notification on March 18. As per the notification, Zardari replaced the three judges with Justices Khadim Hussain Soomro, Mohammad Azam Khan, and Raja Inaam Amin Minhas.

Judges declare tribunal changes unlawful:

The judges declared the former changes in the IHC tribunal reconstitution unlawful. However, they stressed that once the tribunal is constituted according to the 2016 Tribunal Act, it cannot be changed.

The judges criticized the practice of appointing judges to the Islamabad judiciary on deputation from provincial high courts. They asserted that the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010, does not allow such appointments for permanent posts. The ruling ordered the IHC registrar to arrange for all deputed judges to return to their original positions within six months.

Political and legal ramifications:

The judges received verbal instructions on March 17 to delay announcing their decision. On March 18, notification formally reconstituted the tribunal. They ruled that this action was unconstitutional and warned if any decision was made without any legal ground, it would not hold up in court.