Latest news with #JusticeDogar
Express Tribune
17-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
IHC acting CJ takes up PECA plea
ISLAMABAD: Justice Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, the Islamabad High Court's (IHC) newly appointed acting chief justice, took up on Monday a petition filed against the recent amendments to the country's cybercrime law, the Prevention of Electronic Crime Act (PECA), 2016. Justice Dogar was one of the three judges who were transferred from three different provincial high courts to the IHC through a notification issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice on February 3. Five IHC judges filed representations against the transferred judges after the IHC former chief justice, Aamer Farooq, issued a new seniority list in which Justice Dogar appeared as the senior puisne judge. Justice Farooq later rejected the representations and after his elevation to the Supreme Court, Justice Dogar was sworn in as the IHC's acting chief justice in a ceremony boycotted by a number of his IHC colleagues on February 14. On Monday, a single-member bench comprising Justice Dogar addressed the petition filed against the PECA (Amendment) Act, 2025 by the IHC Journalist Association (IHCJA). The IHCJA's lawyer, Mian Samiuddin, informed the bench that similar petitions against PECA amendments were being heard by IHC's Justice Inam Amin Minhas. Responding to a query of the judge, the lawyer said Justice Minhas had adjourned the case for two weeks. He requested the IHC acting chief justice to form a larger bench to hear the plea. Justice Dogar replied that Justice Minas would decide whether a larger bench was needed or not. He instructed the IHC registrar to club the IHCJA's petition with other petitions filed against the PECA (Amendment) Act, 2025. The petition stated that the PECA (Amendment) Act, 2025 is an attack on press freedom and is unconstitutional and illegal. It requested judicial review, arguing that the amendment act violates Articles 19 and 19A of the Constitution.
Express Tribune
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
IHC judges to 'challenge' seniority list in SC
ISLAMABAD: The judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) have decided to challenge the rejection of their representation, sources have revealed. A petition against the decision is expected to be filed in the Supreme Court in the coming days. According to sources, 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 Feb 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. Written order The IHC chief justice on Wednesday issued a written order regarding rejection of representation of five judges against revised seniority list after the transfer of three new judges to IHC. The chief justice ordered the registrar office to send its copies to the judges concerned. The IHC's justices including Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ijaz Ishaq and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz have filed reservations against the new seniority list of the IHC. The eight-page written order said, the bare perusal of the notification shows that Mr Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar prior to the transfer was serving as a judge of Lahore High Court (LHC, Mr Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro was serving as judge of High Court of Sindh and Justice Muhammad Asif was serving as judge of Baluchistan High Court. In this regard the said judges took their oath as judges of the respective high courts. It further said, "The said transfer of the above-mentioned judges has been made under Article 200 of the Constitution under which the president may transfer a judge of a high court from one high court to another but this can only be done with the consent of the judge concerned and after consultation with the chief justice of Pakistan and the chief justices of the both the high courts." It said, "Article 200 of the Constitution speaks of the transfer of a judge from one high court to another. The terms "appointment" and "transfer" cannot be given the same meaning and have to be treated differently." The decision said, "there was no requirement for the judges transferred to this court to take fresh oath and the same is evident from the bare reading of the notification." The decision stated, "In India though the governing Article (Article 222 of the Indian Constitution) is quite different from ours, but the transfer of judges is frequent." "It is to be noted that once a judge has taken oath as a judge of the high court, he continues to be the judge until he attains the age of sixty-two years or is removed or resign or dies or is elevated as a judge of Supreme Court of Pakistan. Thus, when a judge is transferred, he does not vacate the status and office as a judge of the high court but only to the extent of the office which he had been holding as a judge of the particular high court from which he is transferred." The written order said, "The fact that the oath prescribed in the third schedule refers to a particular high court does not mean that at the time of transfer fresh oath of transferee high court is mandated. The judge under transfer continues to be a judge and has the same status and office which he enjoyed prior to transfer." It said, unlike India, we do not have a transfer policy but since the Constitution is the specifically provides so, the President of Pakistan can affect the transfer within the mandate of the constitution. No doubt that there is a concept of inter se seniority within the high court but there is also a concept of seniority amongst the judges in different high courts which a judge once appointed shall carry." The order read, "In light of the referred fact that after the transfer of judges the inter se seniority in this court changed the revised seniority list was issued based on the constitutional provisions of Articles 194, 196 & 20 of the constitution. The revised seniority list is appended herewith." It said, "Due to the reasons mentioned-above the representation in hand is turned down and the seniority list as issued stands. The registrar office directed to forward the copies of the instant decision on representation to the concerned judges." Meanwhile, the district judiciary of Islamabad hosted a dinner in honour of Supreme Court nominees, including IHC chief justice and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, and Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar, along with other judges who were transferred to the IHC from different high courts. The event was attended by eight IHC judges while five judges who had sent the representation regarding the seniority issue were absent.
Express Tribune
05-02-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
IHC judges up in arms against Justice Dogar
ISLAMABAD: Five Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges have refused to accept Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar as a judge of the IHC, raising alarms over his seniority and the legitimacy of his appointment, urging the IHC chief justice to remedy the situation before the crucial Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) meeting. In a representation submitted to IHC CJ Aamer Farooq, Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz argued that Justice Dogar cannot be considered an IHC judge until he takes the oath as required under Article 194 of the Constitution. "The process of Justice Dogar's appointment as judge of Islamabad High Court is however not com-plete, for he has yet to be sworn an oath to serve on the Islamabad High Court as Article 194 makes necessary. Consequently, he cannot be considered a Judge of the Islamabad High Court," it read. The lawyers argued that once Justice Dogar takes his oath as a judge of the IHC, his seniority will need to be determined from the date on which the oath is administered to him by the IHC CJ. Therefore, Justice Dogar will be lower in seniority than the undersigned judges who took their oaths before him. The judges have urged the IHC chief justice to resolve the matter before the JCP meeting scheduled for February 10. "We are endorsing a copy of this representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Pakistan, in his capacity as Chairman JCP, to bring the matter to the attention of JCP, lest the legality of proceedings conducted by JCP on 10.02.2025 also be marred due to consideration of judges for appointment to the Supreme Court from an illegally and erroneously constituted panel of judges from Islamabad High Court," the judges contended. They argue that a judge's assumption of office is contingent upon taking an oath under Article 194, which grants judicial authority within the jurisdiction of the respective high court. The oath does not permit him/her to serve beyond this territorial jurisdiction, they further contended. The representation also noted that Justice Dogar has yet to take an oath as an IHC judge and has only been sworn in as a Lahore High Court judge. However, the IHC's seniority list already lists him as an IHC judge, placing him directly below the chief justice. "This demonstrates a serious jurisdictional error, for a Judge cannot be considered to have been ap-pointed to a high court, till he takes the oath for that particular high court." 'Brazen attempt to pack the court' Commenting on the development, lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii said the inclusion of judges from Sindh and Balochistan was mere "window dressing," asserting that the real issue revolves around Justice Dogar's appointment. "This is just about Justice Dogar and using him to interrupt seniority in the IHC and to deprive inde-pendent-minded judges of their deserved station within that court." Jaferii criticised the IHC chief justice, saying he has been at odds with a majority of his own judges. He noted that for years, the IHC has been run by a CJ who has let down his colleagues and helped the powerful circles brush their claims of interference under the carpet. "This is something the government cannot afford to lose," he noted, adding that the government was trying to manipulate the IHC's seniority structure, using "federal representation" as an excuse. "The IHC already has federal representation. There are judges from Karachi, Swat and Quetta. The Quetta judge last complained of his father being brought and stood before him as a coercive meas-ure," he pointed out. Jaferii questioned why the government opted for transferring serving judges instead of appointing fresh candidates from Sindh and Balochistan. "If it was about affirmative action, there have been lists submitted for the Sindh High Court and the Balochistan High Court where candidates could not make the cut. These candidates could have been considered for fresh appointments to the IHC. Why did it have to be serving judges? And what have these judges done to deserve such transfers ahead of their peers?" Terming the move a "shambolic and brazen attempt to pack a court," he expressed shock over the chief justice of Pakistan's role in legitimising it. "It is shocking that the chief justice of the country is joining in to celebrate it as some gesture of inclu-sivity," the lawyer added. Similarly, lawyer Hasan Mann asserted that the Constitution provided only one procedure for the ap-pointment of a high court judge – through the prescribed initial appointment process, with no alterna-tive. He explained that while Article 200(1) allowed for the transfer of a high court judge from one high court to another, such a transfer cannot be permanent, as the president has no authority to appoint a high court judge through transfer. Furthermore, Mann pointed out that Article 200(1) cannot be read in isolation, as Article 200(2) clari-fied the temporary nature of such transfers. Any interpretation suggesting otherwise would effective-ly grant the president the power to manipulate the seniority of high court judges, contradicting the Supreme Court's 2014 verdict. If a high court judge were transferred permanently, he would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list, as is the case in civil services. Any other arrangement, Mann argued, would create chaos in the su-perior judiciary. This is why the transferee judge's consent was essential, as such a move could put him at a disad-vantage. He added that comparisons with the Indian judiciary are irrelevant, as the provisions of the Indian Con-stitution are worded differently. Administrative reshuffle in IHC Meanwhile, following the addition of three new judges, the IHC chief justice has made several admin-istrative changes. Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar has been appointed as the administrator of anti-terrorism courts (ATC) and national accountability courts, replacing Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani. Justice Muhammad Azam Khan has been appointed as the administrative judge for Islamabad's district courts (West), Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir has been given charge of the FIA courts, and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz has been appointed as the administrative judge of the banking courts.
