•Judge Mandokhay warned that allowing judges to target companions would lead to “internal conflict.”
•Rule emphasizes the principle of judicial equality, focusing on judicial discipline; confirms that judges cannot “choose” cases
• IHC judge “request” is still under review’, SC Spox says
Islamabad: Supreme Court Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail ruled in an 11-page judgment that judges cannot timidize the lawsuit against their peers and determined that only the Supreme Court Committee (SJC) has the authority to constitutional powers against Supreme Court judges and High Court judges.
He explained that judges in the High Court have equal power and status, without personal advantages or inferiority. He warned that allowing judges to take such punitive measures to each other would weaken the judiciary.
The ruling formally proves why six judges at the Supreme Court judges filed an internal appeal (ICA) (Judge) by Nazar Abbas on January 27. Mr. Abbas faces a lawsuit against the contempt of two smaller benches for failing to comply with judicial orders.
The additional Registrar was removed from the case that withdraws a case that challenged the Customs Act, which was led by senior Cat Judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and transferred it to a larger constitutional seat.
Justice Mandokhail warned that allowing judges to see colleagues may trigger internal conflicts that ultimately threaten the integrity of the entire judicial system.
Judge Mandokhar wrote: “Allowing the High Court judges to conduct temporal litigation against their fellow citizens will make it necessary for them to maintain a high degree of self-startment.”
He warned that this practice would promote a hostile environment rather than a collaboration, some of which hurt the agency’s credibility.
“The intimacy between the superior judiciary is crucial to the smooth operation of the course and the process of despising the court by the judges for their peers, which will be conflicts, complaints and resentment in the subject.”
Justice paints a horrible picture of potential consequences.
Judge Mandogal pointed out: “There will be anarchy and a collapse of the judicial system, which will violate the principle of ‘esprit de corps’ (a common spirit that exists in a group member and inspires enthusiasm, dedication and a strong emphasis on the honor of the group).
“Trends will erode public trust and there is no legal system that can allow the judicial system to collapse,” he added.
The judgment confirmed that despite the inherent constitutional powers of judges to initiate court proceedings, the authority did not extend to their colleagues on the bench.
He noted: “Judges in the High Court have the same status and power within their hierarchy, and therefore, none of them are neither superior or in the direction of issuance nor can they punish the other.”
The ruling clears the boundaries of judicial immunity, observing that while judges are often protected by their judicial work and administrative functions, such protection is not absolute and does not deprive them of liability for misconduct. However, the appropriate and only channel for this accountability is the Supreme Judicial Commission.
Justice Mandokhail pointed out: “A charge of misconduct by a Supreme Court judge or a High Court judge against a Supreme Court judge or a High Court can only be questioned by the Supreme Judicial Committee (SJC) and handled under Article 209 of the Constitution.”
The Justice recalled a rare historical case, referring to the case of Iftikhar Chaudhry and others, and the Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to several Supreme and High Court judges for violating the restrictive order from November 3, 2007. The context of the case is significantly different from that of this case and is significantly different from this issue.
The judgment also delves into key issues of judicial process and discipline, especially in handling “partially found” cases.
Judge Mandokhail confirmed that good legal principles should not be transferred administratively unless expressly permitted by law or constitutional rules.
“The purpose of this principle is that once a court or court hears a considerable length of case, transferring the case from that case to that case may lead to a Denovo hearing,” he explained.
However, he introduced a key exception that applies directly to the registrar’s case: If the court’s jurisdiction is cancelled during trial by a new legislation or constitutional amendment, the court will lose all rights to litigation. Judge Mandokhar pointed out: “The matter is awaiting or being deemed a partial hearing, and it has lost the power to take any further action on the matter and therefore the lawsuit must be stopped.”
He stressed: “After the amendment, the relevant provisions of the Constitution are violated, and the regular judges have no reason to make further litigation.” He pointed out that the court committee also has no right to go beyond the constitutional change.
He stressed that the judge was bound by his oath and strict code of conduct, saying: “If each judge of the SC or High Court begins and chooses his case for the case without following Vogue’s practice and procedures, the discipline of the court will be compromised.”
Petition that IHC judge is reviewing
The Supreme Court says petitions separately Filed During the normal review process, any orders regarding their destiny will be made in due course at the five senior meetings of the High Court of Islamabad.
“The petition is in the normal process of procedural review and any orders are made when appropriate,” said Dr. Shahid Hussain Kamboyo, a spokesman for the Supreme Court.
On September 19, five judges – Justice Mohsin Aktar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Raffat Imtiaz – appeared in the Apex Court to file a constitutional petition.
The petitioner judge begged the Supreme Court to declare that the executive power of the Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court cannot be deployed to undermine or outweigh the judicial power of the High Court judge. They have no right to form a high court.
It also demanded that the Supreme Court declare that the CJ-IHC cannot arbitrarily exclude available judges from the lineup and use that power to issue judicial functions to old judges.
Posted at Dawn on September 25, 2025
