ISLAMABAD: Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas reaffirmed the exclusive role of Chief Justice as the “Master of the Roster” and highlighted the judiciary’s structural safeguards against forum shopping.
In a 19-page verdict, Islamabad High Court judge, Justice Minhas, dismissed the petition seeking transfer of a case between benches, declaring such requests “inherently non-maintainable” under constitutional and procedural law.
Mudassir Malik had filed an application to secure transfer of the main writ petition directly to another bench of this court comprising Justice Babar Sattar. Upon which, the office raised objection that how this application regarding bench fixation can be entertainable and placed it before this single bench of Justice Minhas as an objection case.
The grounds raised by the applicant and the arguments by the counsel of the applicant primarily revolved around the premise that an earlier writ petition on the same subject matter is pending before another bench of this court; hence, comity and propriety demand that the instant writ be also transferred to that bench.
The verdict reaffirmed the CJ’s exclusive role as the “Master of the Roster” and highlighted the judiciary’s structural safeguards against forum shopping.
Justice Minhas noted, “A litigant’s right is to approach the court, not to choose their judge. The latter is a privilege reserved to the Master of the Roster alone.”
Petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Muhammad Umer Khan Vardag, argued that consolidating the cases before a single bench was essential to uphold “judicial comity” and to avoid conflicting rulings, particularly as the respondent was allegedly attempting to circumvent a stay order issued in the earlier petition.
The IHC registrar initially objected to the transfer request, questioning its legal foundation. The matter was subsequently referred to Justice Minhas’s bench as an “objection case”.
In his judgement, Justice Minhas cited Article 202 of the Constitution, which empowers high courts to frame rules governing their own practice and procedure.
According to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) Rules, the chief justice alone holds the authority to constitute benches and allocate cases.
Reaffirming the “Master of the Roster” doctrine, the judge emphasised the chief justice’s role as the “exclusive conduit” for assigning cases. It cited the Supreme Court ruling in the Muhammad Wasay Tareen vs Chief Justice of Balochistan case, which held that litigants have no right to demand adjudication before a specific bench.
Pakistani precedents, such as Benazir Bhutto vs President of Pakistan, were cited to dismiss indirect challenges to judicial impartiality disguised as procedural transfer requests.
Justice Minhas cautioned that such petitions, even when carefully framed, implicitly question the fairness or competence of the presiding judge. “Such applications; however, artfully worded imply a veiled objection to the judge. This undermines judicial discipline and the sanctity of bench assignments,” he wrote.
The verdict said that the allocation of benches is an administrative act, not a judicial one, and that judges exercise jurisdiction only after a case has been formally entrusted to them by the chief justice.
It added that turning now to the well-established doctrine of the “Master of the Roster,” authoritative clarity and jurisprudential guidance can be drawn from Indian judicial precedent, which has developed a comprehensive framework on the subject. The principle has been unequivocally affirmed by Justice Dipak Misra, the 45th Chief Justice of India, who emphatically stated that “The Chief Justice is the master of the roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute the benches of the court and allocate cases to the benches so constituted.”
“The chief justice’s prerogative to constitute benches is not a mere tradition but a constitutional necessity. To dilute this power would invite chaos and erode public confidence in the judiciary,” the judgement concluded.
It added that for what has been discussed above, the office objection is sustained and it is held that any petition or application seeking transfer of a case from one bench to other is not maintainable. This objection case be made part of the main file.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.