Islamabad: The administration of the Supreme Court registrar objection Petition filed by judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) deepens unprecedented dispute Within the judiciary, five judges then consulted with senior lawyers.
Last week, IHC judges – Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz – went to the High Court, where four of them filed petitions from the High Court. The Supreme Court’s registrant later raised various objections to the petition.
The judge went with senior lawyers Faisal Siddiqui and Abid Zubairi on Monday and Tuesday.
Advocate Siddiqui had earlier spoken on their behalf in a petition about the current Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and Mohammad Asif.
Initially, he was participated by former president of the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) Riasat Ali Azad to defend the case of five judges, but the petition was withdrawn by his successor. However, Mr. Azad retained him as a lawyer when submitting another identical petition through four former IHCBA presidents.
The Supreme Court’s Registrar’s Office filed an administrative objection to the petitions filed by five IHC judges on Monday. The judge appeared in court in person last Friday and filed a constitutional petition, challenging the challenge of the IHC’s chief justice for exercising executive power.
In their request, the judge demanded that the executive power of the Chief Justice of the IHC cannot be exercised in a manner that undermines judicial power. They argue that once a matter is seized, the CJ-IHC is authorized to transfer the case, rebuild the bench, or to arbitrarily exclude available judges from the lineup.
In the objection, the petitioner invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution on the Implementation of Fundamental Rights, but the complaints filed are of personal nature and therefore cannot be maintained in view of the 1998 Zulfiqar Mehdi case. In this judgment, a hero of the Supreme Court held that Article 184 (3) could not be imposed for personal grief.
Posted at Dawn on September 24, 2025
