Imran Khan challenges judges' transfer order in Supreme Court
Listen to article
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founding chairman Imran Khan has filed a petition in Pakistan's Supreme Court, challenging the recent transfer of judges, calling it unconstitutional and unlawful.
The petition, submitted under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, argues that the transfer notification violates judicial independence. Imran has requested the court to declare the notification null and void.
The federal government and the registrars of the high courts in Lahore, Sindh, Balochistan, and Islamabad have been named as respondents in the case.
Imran's plea seeks a directive from the Supreme Court to ensure compliance with legal precedents, including the landmark Al-Jehad Trust case, which set guidelines for judicial appointments and transfers.
The petition emphasises that judicial transfers must adhere to constitutional principles and must not be influenced by external pressures. It also calls for a strict observance of judicial autonomy.
The challenge comes amid heightened tensions between Imran's party and the government, with the judiciary often at the centre of political controversies. Legal experts believe the case could test the Supreme Court's stance on judicial independence.
Imran's legal team argues that the move could impact fair trials and judicial neutrality, urging the top court to intervene immediately.
Last month, the judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) decided to challenge the rejection of their representation.
The representation seeks the restoration of the previous seniority structure of the IHC. Additionally, the petition will request the annulment of the decision issued by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, who had dismissed the representation.
Chief Justice Aamer Farooq had previously upheld the placement of three transferred judges to the IHC from three other high courts, affirming their rankings at the second, ninth and 12th positions in the seniority list.
The new seniority list was challenged by five IHC judges.
The chief justice ruled that the transferred judges did not require a fresh oath and that their seniority would be counted from the date of their first oath in the high court. Accordingly, the new seniority list of IHC judges will remain unchanged.
On February 1, the judges' strength at the IHC increased with the transfer of Justice Sarfaraz Dogar from the Lahore High Court (LHC), Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro from the Sindh High Court and Justice Muhammad Asif from the Balochistan High Court.
Later, on Feb 4, a revised seniority list was issued, designating Justice Sarfaraz Dogar as the senior puisne judge, followed by Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani as the second senior-most judge and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb in the third position.
Justice Tariq Jahangiri was in the fourth place, Justice Babar Sattar fifth, Justice Sardar Ishaq Khan sixth, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir seventh, Justice Suman Riffat Imtiaz eighth, Justice Soomro ninth, Justice Azam Khan 10th, Justice Muhammad Asif 11th and Justice Inam Amin Minhas 12th.
Following the new seniority list, Justice Kayani, Justice Jahangiri, Justice Sattar, Justice Khan and Justice Imtiaz submitted a representation to the chief justice, saying that Justice Dogar could not be considered an IHC judge until he took oath as required under Article 194 of the Constitution.
The five judges said Justice Dogar had only been sworn in as a LHC judge. However, the IHC's seniority list already listed him as an IHC judge, placing him directly below the chief justice. They urged the chief justice to resolve the matter before the JCP meeting.
Sources said the IHC chief justice rejected the representation and instructed the IHC registrar's office to inform all those five judges about his decision on the representation. Accordingly, Justice Dogar, who took oath as a high court judge in 2015, would be the senior puisne judge of the IHC.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
12 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Punjab power relief funded by profits of two power companies
LAHORE: After the reduction in electricity tariffs of two power companies - Quaid-e-Azam Thermal Power Private Limited and the Punjab Thermal Power Private Limited - there will be cut in power tariff for the consumers but its impact would not be too significant, it has been learnt. 'There will be definitely reduction in power tariff of electricity consumers in Punjab and the relief will be financed with profits earned by said two government-owned power companies,' sources in the energy department said, adding: 'In light of the Punjab cabinet decision, the provincial government would approach Nepra for a reduction in power tariffs for these two plants so that these price reductions get permanence and are reflected in the new tariff.' It may be noted that the Punjab government had established a special purpose vehicle company by the name of Quaid-e-Azam Thermal Power (Pvt) Limited (QATPL) in March 2015 under section 32 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 in Independent Power Producer (IPP) mode with the mandate to build, own and operate a 1180 MW RLNG based power plant at Bhikki, Shiekhupura on fast track. Punjab CM announces up to 40pc relief in power tariffs The Punjab Thermal Power (Private) Limited (PTPL) is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2017. It is wholly owned by the government of Punjab through the energy department. The main objective of the company is to establish and operate a 1263 MW thermal power plant based on RLNG at Haveli Bahadur Shah near Trimmu Barrage, District Jhang in Punjab. It may be recalled that the provincial cabinet in its meeting had given nod to cut the power tariffs of these two plants by 30-40 per cent to reduce electricity bills. This move is similar to the federal government's which recently renegotiated contracts with independent power plants (IPPs) to reduce tariffs, the sources added. 'Both the companies had curtailed its profits as well as reduced non-developmental expenditures to materialize this move.' Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
12 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Amendments to orders for accuracy: Commissioner IR has powers under Sec 221(1) of IT law: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court ruled that the Commissioner Inland Revenue has jurisdiction under Section 221(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 to amend the orders by rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. The 24-page judgment, authored by Justice Munib Akhtar, set aside the impugned judgments of the Lahore High Court (LHC) and the Islamabad High Court (IHC). It held; 'the tax references out of which these matters arise shall be deemed pending in the respective High Courts and the questions of law raised therein decided in accordance with law and consistently with this judgment.' Section 122 (5A) ITO: Power granted to IR commissioners is not without boundaries: ATIR 'CPLA 431-L/2023 involves questions of law other than the one decided by this judgment. This leave petition is returned to the office to be fixed in the ordinary course before an appropriate Bench,' it also said. A three-judge bench, headed by Justice Munib Akhtar, and comprising Justice Ayesha A Malik and Justice Shahid Waheed heard the department (FBR) petitions against the LHC and IHC decisions. Babar Bilal appeared in CPLA Nos.4583 to 4585/2023. The judgment noted that the matters relating to the deemed assessment order (and indeed, the deemed amended assessment order) fall only and always within the first part (of Mehreen Zaibun Nisa), with all ensuing 'inevitable corollaries' applying accordingly. One of these is that the deemed orders of both kinds must be regarded as orders 'passed' by the Commissioner within the meaning, and for the purposes of, Section 221(1). 'The Commissioner therefore has the jurisdiction to amend the orders by rectifying any mistake apparent from the record'. The judgment decided the question; 'Whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction under subsection (1) of Section 221 of the 2001 Ordinance to amend, in exercise of the power thereby conferred and, in the manner, and to the extent therein stated, what is known as a deemed assessment order under s. 120 to rectify a mistake apparent from the record?', in favour of the Commissioner and against the taxpayers. The High Courts had answered the question in the negative. The Department urged that both the courts erred materially in this regard. The taxpayers pray that the impugned judgments be upheld as having reached the correct conclusion in law. The judgment confirmed that the error made by the High Courts was to conflate the two deeming provisions into one. It was on account of this mistake that both judgments, whose reasoning run in parallel, concluded that there was no application of mind by the Commissioner and that the mistake always lay where, and by whom, in fact made, i.e., the taxpayer. However, once this unfortunate fusing is unpacked, and what the subsection actually does and require is realized, the mistake becomes apparent. Had the subsection only contained the deeming required by clause (b), then there could be merit to what the learned High Courts concluded. In such a situation, the only 'state of affairs' required to be imagined would be the deemed issuance of an assessment order. It could perhaps then be said that the deeming did not reach or touch any mistake to be found as a matter of fact in the return, and hence the deemed assessment order did not deal with any such thing. In this situation the attribution of the mistake, being outside the scope (or beyond the limit) of the legal fiction could be said to lie where, and by whom, actually made as a matter of fact. But that of course is not the case. There is also the (precedent) deeming required by clause (a). Once that is kept in mind then the inevitable conclusion is that there was, as a matter of law, a (deemed) application of mind by the Commissioner. Since it operated (as it could only) on the return, an inevitable corollary is that it is the whole of it, mistakes and all, that is the assessment (deemed) to have been made. And it is the (deemed) assessment so made that then results in the (deemed) issuance of the assessment order. In our view, it is only in terms of this bifurcation that subsection (1) can be properly understood and applied. A rolling up of the two clauses into one, with respect, led to the error into which both the learned High Courts fell. Thus, in the principal LHC judgment much emphasis was placed on s. 221(1) requiring that the order be 'passed' by the Commissioner. The matters before the Supreme Court arose under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 in relation to the jurisdiction, under subsection (1) of Section 221, of the Commissioner to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the record and thereby amend what is known as a deemed assessment order under s. Most of these matters come from the Lahore High Court, where the principal judgment is dated 27.04.2022. That decision disposed of eight tax references that had been filed by the Commissioner and was followed in all the other matters in the said High Court by various orders of different dates. Islamabad High Court, where the principal judgment is dated 20.09.2023 which disposed of tax references filed by the Department. Both High Courts reached the same conclusion on the question now before the Court and therefore, all these matters were heard together and are being decided by this judgment. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
16 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Pakistan's military leadership extends Eidul Azha greetings to nation
Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir and other military commanders stand up in respect of the national anthem. PHOTO: NNI Listen to article On the occasion of Eidul Azha, Pakistan's top military leadership, including Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Chief of Naval Staff, and Chief of Air Staff, have extended their heartfelt Eid greetings to the people of Pakistan. The statement, issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), conveyed the armed forces' earnest prayers for lasting peace, prosperity, and national unity. It praised the enduring resilience of the Pakistani nation and expressed profound gratitude for the bravery and sacrifices of the armed forces, Law Enforcement Agencies, and the citizens who continue to safeguard the nation's security and stability. Eidul Azha, a time of reflection, sacrifice, and unity, was acknowledged as an opportunity to promote harmony within the country. The military leaders highlighted the need to strengthen the spirit of solidarity that unites Pakistan as a nation, reaffirming the armed forces' commitment to defend the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity. "We stand resolutely with the people of Pakistan," the statement added, "united in purpose and steadfast in our sacred duty to protect the homeland." The message also honoured the families of martyrs, known as Shuhada-e-Pakistan, for their ultimate sacrifices in the service of peace and the nation. The military's tribute highlighted their irreplaceable role in ensuring the country's safety and security.
