Supreme Court looks at seniority under Article 200
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned until Thursday (today) the hearing of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge transfer case.
A five-member constitutional bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, presided over the hearing.
During proceedings, the Advocate General for Punjab advanced his arguments, stating that West Pakistan was made a single unit in 1955 through the Pakistan Governor General Order.
As a result, all high court-level courts were consolidated into one, and a seniority list was compiled based on the judges' appointment dates.
However, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that the situation in the present case was different, as no judicial formation or dissolution had taken place in connection with the transfer of judges to the IHC.
In response, the advocate general clarified that his point was only to illustrate that judges' prior service and transfers had historically been accepted.
Justice Afghan observed that the central question in the case is whether the judge's transfer is to be considered permanent or temporary under Article 200 of the Constitution.
He further inquired why a judge ranked 15th on the seniority list was transferred while 14 judges senior to him were overlooked.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Timeline has to be set by court when constitutional timeline is not met: PTI counsel
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf(PTI)'s counsel told the Constitutional Bench that the majority judgment in reserved seats has not violated the Constitution by extending time for 41 independents to join the PTI. Salman Akram Raja, representing the PTI, said that eight judges of the Supreme Court have dealt with the coercive measure adopted by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) the PTI candidates had opted to contest elections as independent. An 11-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Aminuddin Khan, heard the review petitions of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), Pakistan Peoples' Party (PPP) and the ECP. The proceeding was live-streamed on SC's You Tube channel. Raja argued that the timeline has to be set by the Court when constitutional timeline is not met. The eight judges considering all the facts and the precedents gave relief to the PTI. Justice Amin inquired when the Court hearing an appeal filed against the Peshawar High Court (PHC) under Article 185 of the Constitution then can use Article 187. Raja, citing cases of NRO and extension to the Chief of Army Staff, argued that deviation had taken place in the past as well, but the Supreme Court cured them. He said judgment of Justice Mandokhail and Justice Qazi Faez also recognised the deviation and cured it by declaring that 39 independents are PTI candidates and entitled to reserved seats. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail said to extent of 39 independents they had done that on the basis of undisputed facts. Raja contended that the majority judgment had also looked at all the facts and the precedents and came up with two different sets of relief, adding the factual finding cannot be undone. Justice Amin said till date, none of the 80 independents has disputed that he or she has not joined the SIC independently. Justice Mandokhail noted that the elections process starts by filing nomination papers, adding the candidates who have mentioned in their nomination papers independent then why not they accept those nomination papers? At the onset of the proceedings, Raja explained why the PTI candidates contested general elections 2024 as independents. He submitted that after the Supreme Court's judgment on the PTI's intra-party elections, the ECP disallowed party symbol to them, and also derecognised the PTI, adding the ECP in its 9th February order declared all the PTI candidates as independents, including those who had contested on PTI tickets and won the elections. He told that there was great confusion at time as they were told that all the PTI candidates would be treated as independents, 'therefore our returned candidates had joined the SIC, as we had the precedent of Balochistan Awami Party (BAP) before us that a party which had not contested elections and won any seats, but was distributed reserved seats.' 'We had the understanding that ultimately the will of the people would prevail.' Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail stated that the BAP had contested the election and secured seats, adding it had some members in the Balochistan provincial assembly and five in the Senate, if not in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Raja replied that they had assumption that the BAP party had no seats in the National Assembly and the provincial assemblies. Justice Mandokhail said despite various difficulties some of the PTI members contested on the PTI tickets and became MNAs. He questioned when PTI was in the National Assembly then why 80 independent returned candidates joined the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC). He asked whether those six MNAs had claimed reserved seats on their strength? Raja replied that till 11th February 2024, the ECP treated them (the six MNAs) also as independents. 'If six lawmakers had been recognised as PTI then the independent candidates could have joined the PTI instead of the SIC.' Justice Mandokhail then asked Raja that you filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court (LHC),praying that you should be declared as PTI candidate instead of independent. Raja informed that his petition was disposed of by a divisional bench of LHC, which included Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, without any order and the matter was remanded to the ECP. 'I came to the Supreme Court against that order I have challenged the vires of Explanation of Rule 94 of The Election Rules, but the SC office returned my petition on 2nd February, 2024 by raising objections.' Justice Mandokhail then asked him whether you or any of the PTI leaders till date has challenged that order? Raja responded: 'We came to the Supreme Court not once, but twice, but our application was returned by the Registrar's Office, and we were told that the Supreme Court will not entertain any election related application.' Upon that, Justice Mandokhail questioned why not any of the PTI leaders filed any chamber appeal. The case was adjourned until today (Thursday). Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
CJ's NOC now mandatory for SC judges' travel
Supreme Court judges are now required to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) prior to travelling abroad under newly issued regulations that have prompted concerns within the legal fraternity regarding judicial autonomy. The direction follows a recently promulgated Presidential Order by President Asif Ali Zardari — titled Supreme Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2025 — through which paragraph 14 of the President's Order 2 of 1997 has been amended. According to the amended provision, the Chief Justice has been granted explicit authority to approve or deny leave, whether domestic or foreign, as well as revoke or curtail any previously approved leave for judges of the apex court. Following the presidential directive, the Supreme Court Registrar, Muhammad Salim Khan, issued a general standing order outlining Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that will now regulate judges' leave and travel. The issuance of these SOPs has raised eyebrows in the legal fraternity. Some lawyers suggest that the new framework appears aimed at controlling judges, particularly those who voice concerns about the judiciary at events held outside the country. "Travel restrictions per se do not conflict with judicial independence provided they are purely administrative, applied fairly and operate within the judiciary's internal framework, not under the executive control. In the instant case, the purpose seems to be supervisory, not administrative," former additional attorney general Tariq Mahmood Khokhar said. "It is potentially a tool for control and, or intimidation. Judicial independence means independence in decision-making, but judges' travel restrictions can violate independence if permission is used selectively or punitively or under executive interference," he added. Khokhar warned that the amendment lacks adequate safeguards against abuse.
Express Tribune
7 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Supreme Court looks at seniority under Article 200
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned until Thursday (today) the hearing of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge transfer case. A five-member constitutional bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, presided over the hearing. During proceedings, the Advocate General for Punjab advanced his arguments, stating that West Pakistan was made a single unit in 1955 through the Pakistan Governor General Order. As a result, all high court-level courts were consolidated into one, and a seniority list was compiled based on the judges' appointment dates. However, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that the situation in the present case was different, as no judicial formation or dissolution had taken place in connection with the transfer of judges to the IHC. In response, the advocate general clarified that his point was only to illustrate that judges' prior service and transfers had historically been accepted. Justice Afghan observed that the central question in the case is whether the judge's transfer is to be considered permanent or temporary under Article 200 of the Constitution. He further inquired why a judge ranked 15th on the seniority list was transferred while 14 judges senior to him were overlooked.
