EDITORIAL: The transfer of three Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges to different provinces without their consent marks the first instance of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) exercising its authority under the 27th Amendment, which had revised Article 200 of the Constitution to allow such decisions by majority vote.
Presided over by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, the commission on April 28 approved by an 11-4 majority the transfer of Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani to the Lahore High Court and of Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz to the Sindh High Court, while the transfer of Justice Babar Sattar to the Peshawar High Court was carried by a 10-5 margin. That these judges were widely regarded as independent-minded, had issued rulings and observations not always aligned with the preferences of those in power, and were among those who had previously raised concerns regarding alleged interference in judicial affairs, at the very least creates the impression that their transfers may be a consequence of their independence and willingness to speak out.
It must be noted that the passage of the 26th and the 27th Amendments had already stirred concerns over their potential to erode the principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers, while also raising apprehensions about entrenching executive influence in critical judicial processes, including the appointment and transfer of judges. With this latest move by the JCP, those concerns appear increasingly difficult to dismiss. Such steps and the broader implications of the 26th and 27th Amendments for a rules-based order cannot be viewed in isolation. Those in power must recognise that their consequences extend well beyond the institutional domain of the judiciary.
The credibility of legal safeguards underpins investor confidence, shapes the business climate and informs risk assessments across sectors, meaning that even the perception of a weakened judiciary can carry tangible economic costs. If an impression takes hold – regardless of its accuracy – that courts are predisposed to favour the executive in consequential matters, the repercussions for both foreign direct investment and domestic capital formation are unlikely to be benign. Why would foreign investors commit capital to a country where the judiciary or the wider legal environment is perceived as lacking consistency, independence, and predictability in the enforcement of contracts and the adjudication of disputes?
At stake, therefore, is not only judicial integrity and its implications for fundamental rights – a concern in its own right – but the need for every tier of the judiciary to be seen to function with unimpeachable independence and impartiality for the sake of sustaining economic stability, investor confidence and the credibility of the country’s broader economic order. The fact that even the chief justice opposed transferring the judges without their consent – a practice seldom seen in jurisdictions claiming adherence to a genuine rules-based order – only reinforces the conclusion that the move sits uneasily within established norms of due process. In fact, the judges weren’t even afforded a hearing before the decision was taken.
At the very least, it would be prudent to give due weight to the recommendations proffered by some members of the JCP, who have urged the formulation of clear, coherent rules and terms governing such transfers to ensure that a proper process is in place, and that there is no impression of such measures being punitive or influenced by considerations beyond judicial necessity. Without such safeguards, institutional uncertainty risks spilling over into broader perceptions of governance quality, undermining public trust in the system. And such erosion of trust, it must be noted, does not remain confined to institutions alone, as it inevitably feeds into investor sentiment and the broader economic climate, shaping expectations around stability, predictability, and the conditions necessary for sustained economic growth.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments