'Transferred judges can't work sans oath'
ISLAMABAD:
Islamabad High Court (IHC) judge Babar Sattar has taken exception to initiation of judicial work by the three judges recently transferred to the capital's high court from the provincial high courts of Sindh, Punjab and Balochistan without first taking the oath as IHC judges.
The judge has also objected to the new seniority list of the IHC justices as well as inclusion of the transferred judges in the IHC's Administrative Committee and Departmental Promotion Committee, declaring all these moves to be in breach of the Constitution and law.
In a letter dated February 4 and addressed to IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, Justice Sattar stated that under Article 193 of the Constitution the chief justice and every judge of a high court is to be appointed by the president in accordance with Article 175A of the Constitution.
"The other possible mode of appointment of a judge to a high court is by means of transfer in terms of Article 200 of the Constitution."
He said under Article 194 of the Constitution, before entering office, the chief justice of a high court is bound to take an oath to be administered by the provincial governor while any other judge of a high court is bound to take an oath to be administered by the chief justice.
"Similarly, no judge can assume the office of a judge and begin to discharge the functions and duties of the office of a judge of a high court without swearing an oath as a judge of that particular high court vested with jurisdiction within the territory that falls in the province of such high court."
Justice Sattar noted that after their transfer to the IHC in terms of Article 200 of the Constitution, the three judges did not take an oath in the form prescribed in Third Schedule of the Constitution as judges of the IHC "as the rest of us have done".
"Consequently, they cannot be taken to have assumed the office of judges of the IHC and can therefore not be treated as judges of the IHC for purposes of discharge of judicial duties and/or administrative functions," he added.
Justice Sattar reminded Justice Aamer Farooq that as the IHC chief justice he was under an obligation to administer oaths to the transferred judges, in terms of Article 194 of the Constitution, before they could assume office as judges of the IHC.
"Every passing day, when the transferred judges exercise judicial and/or administrative powers and functions of the office of a judge of the IHC, the illegality will continue to be perpetuated.
Objecting to the reconstitution of the IHC Administrative Committee, Justice Sattar, who has been on leave since Feb 3, noted that under the Islamabad Judicial Service Rules, the Administration Committee should comprise the IHC chief justice and two senior judges.
"Even if we were to not bear in mind the constitutional requirement of swearing an oath in terms Article 194 of the Constitution and conceive of a situation where the transferred judges have sworn oaths as judges of the IHC, Justice Soomro, who is presently at serial No 9 of the Seniority List issued by you [on February 3], would still not qualify as one of the two senior judges of IHC.
"As the composition of the Administration Committee has been prescribed by Rule 2(a) of the Islamabad Judicial Service Rules, the chief justice is vested with no discretion to constitute a committee in breach of such rule and appoint a junior judge to serve on the Administration Committee," he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
IHCBA to hold jurists confab on 26th Amendment
The Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) has announced to organise a jurists conference for an open debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the 26th Constitutional Amendment and invited the Insaf Lawyers Forum to suggest names of its two jurists for the conference. IHCBA President Wajid Ali Gilani wrote a letter to Ali Bukhari of the Insaf Lawyers Forum — which is linked to the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf — in response to his critical letter. Gilani said that the 26th Amendment was passed by parliament and the lawyers would uphold the Constitution. "Lawyers are not legislators, our mandate is to defend the constitutional structure not to hold protest marches against legislation," Gilani said. Two parliamentarians from your party, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Senator Ali Zafar, were present during its [26th Amendment] passage." He further said that IHCBA would convene a Jurist Conference for an open debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the 26th Amendment, adding that eminent jurists from all political parties would be invited. "You should nominate two jurists from your party to participate in the Jurist Conference."
Business Recorder
2 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Aurangzeb tells Senate body: Govt plans foreclosure laws to boost housing finance
ISLAMABAD: In a diplomatic embarrassment for India again, this time the World Bank Board approved $700 million for Reko Diq project – a game changer, which is expected to generate exports worth $2.8 billion by 2028. This was stated by Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb while briefing the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Revenue. Aurangzeb also announced that government will introduce foreclosure laws to encourage bank-led financing in the housing sector, besides a new mechanism will be developed to eliminate non-filers to document the cash economy. Housing scheme with SBP's help: Rs5bn set aside for mark-up subsidy The committee commenced its first session to deliberate on the Finance Bill, 2025, including the Annual Budget Statement presented in the House, in accordance with Article 73 of the Constitution. The committee meeting chaired by Saleem Mandviwalla, here on Friday. Aurangzeb said that India tried again like it attempted in creating hurdles in the approval of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan. This time again India failed. This approval of $700 million which will be provided by the IFC was granted during a World Bank Board meeting in Washington. It is a significant economic diplomatic victory for Pakistan and a major setback for India, which had actively lobbied against the funding. Aurangzeb delivered an overview of the budget, economic progress, and the geopolitical headwinds confronting Pakistan. 'We have not imposed any new tax in the budget. Instead, we have taken new tax measures worth Rs312 billion through compliance and enforcement', said the minister, and confirmed that these steps were endorsed by the IMF under tax enforcement commitments. The finance minister shared economic data remarking that exports have increased by 7.8 percent in the current fiscal year. Last year's exports were $29 billion, this year we have already hit $30 billion in 11 months, he added. He said that there are no longer obstacles to opening Letters of Credit (LCs), and anyone saying otherwise is spreading misinformation. Facing questions on privatisation, Aurangzeb admitted, 'It must be accepted that privatisation targets were not achieved.' However, he reassured the committee that 'PIA has now been brought back into the privatisation stream.' Responding to the long-standing debate on agricultural taxation, he asserted, 'Earlier it was said agriculture tax can never be imposed. Now, they say it can't be collected. We will collect it—just give us the chance.' Provinces are set to begin agricultural income tax collection from July 1, 2025, he added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
'Cross-examination can't be denied'
The Supreme Court has ruled that denying the opportunity of cross-examination to a witness constitutes a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. A five-page judgment authored by Justice Salahuddin Panwar, while setting aside the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, noted that the cross-examination was the highest and most indispensable test known to the law for the discovery of truth. The top court said that the reliability of evidence can only be judged through cross-examination, which is essential to reveal the truth and test the credibility of allegations. This is especially important when the possibility cannot be ruled out in the inquiry that a witness may raise untrue and dishonest allegations due to some animosity against the accused, which cannot be accepted unless he undergoes the test of cross-examination, which indeed helps to expose the truth and veracity of allegations. The petitioner, who was serving as a superintendent of police (PSP-BS-18), was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He was issued a charge sheet and a statement of allegations for committing acts of omission, thereby constituting inefficiency, misconduct and corruption in terms of Rule 3(a)(b) and (c) of the government servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated pursuant to an order dated December 23,2015, passed by the Supreme Court, and the Sindh government forwarded the names of other PSP officers, including the petitioner, for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. However, during the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner was summoned, heard in person, and his statement/reply was recorded against the said charge sheet. The statements of 138 witnesses were recorded, but he was not allowed to cross-examine any of them. After completion of the inquiry, the report was submitted on 12.11.2018 to the authorised officer, who forwarded it to the Secretary (Establishment) with the recommendation to impose the major penalty of "Reduction to Lower Stage in Time Scale for Three Years" under Rule-4(b)(ii) of the government servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Federal Service Tribunal (FST) upheld the punishment. The petitioner later approached the Supreme Court. The order notes that the main objective of cross-examination is to rigorously scrutinise the witness's testimony, reveal any inconsistencies, uncover potential biases, and critically assess the reliability of the evidence presented.
