ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar directed the formation of a new bench to hear a constitutional petition challenging the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s April 28 decision.
An IHC single-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, on Friday heard a writ petition challenging the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s (JCP) April 28 decision that vacancies arising from the transfer of a judge “shall be filled through transfer only”.
Advocate Supreme Court Syed Nayyab Hassan Gardezi has filed a petition against the Federation of Pakistan, JCP, the President and Prime Minister, contending that the impugned decision has no constitutional foundation and conflicts with Article 175A(8), which requires the commission to nominate one person “for each vacancy” of a high court judge. It argued that the Constitution recognises no category of high court vacancy exempt from this requirement and that the commission cannot create one through a resolution.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel, Yawar Gardezi, argued that three vacant judges’ seats in the IHC should be filled through fresh appointments under the Constitution rather than further transfers.
Justice Dogar told the lawyer that, as he is also a member of the JCP against whose decision the petition had been filed, it is inappropriate for him to hear this case. “I do not want to pass any order in this case, as it may give the impression that favour is being extended,” he further said and added that the case would be placed before another bench, within a day or two, which would also examine the objections.
The court subsequently directed that the matter be placed before another bench and adjourned the hearing.
The petitioner sought to annul the JCP’s decision, which held that a vacancy arising from the transfer of a High Court judge would not be treated as a vacant position for an initial appointment.
The petition contended that the JCP decision was taken in disregard of the procedure prescribed by the JCP (Appointment of Judges) Rules 2024. It points out that Rule 11(2) requires the secretary to notify all members at least 14 days before a scheduled meeting, providing the agenda and supporting materials. According to the petition, the impugned decision was reportedly introduced during the proceedings rather than being included in the circulated agenda.
It further stated that the JCP Rules, as notified, contain no provision for the amendment, while the only provision allowing the commission to remove difficulties — Rule 15 — requires the votes of at least two-thirds of its total membership. The impugned decision; however, records only a “majority of its total membership”.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments