Five judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) – namely Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Saman Rafat and Ejaz Ishaq Khan – filed a separate petition to the Supreme Court (SC) last Friday.
So far, dawn.com Copies of the Justices of Kayani, Sattar, Jahangiri and Khan’s petitions have been obtained, all of which should be made the same. Based on available information dawn.com Court correspondent, Judge Rafat’s petition is similar to that of the other four judges.
In their petition, the judge brought up the SC, declaring that executive power could not be deployed to undermine or outperform the judicial power of the High Court judges.
They further demanded that the Supreme Court declare that the Chief Justice of the High Court “has no authority to form a bench or transfer case” once a High Court judge is sentenced to the case.
Furthermore, the petition calls for the declaration that the Chief Justice of the High Court “cannot exclude available judges from the lineup from the lineup and use power to issue a roster to Justice Uster, thereby executing judicial functions”.
It also urged the SC to announce that “the constitution, transfer of cases and issuance of the lineup can be completed only in accordance with the rules adopted in Article 202 (Rules of Procedure)”.
The petitioner also asked the Supreme Court to announce that the “decision” of promulgating lineups and case transfers cannot “just fall into the hands of the Chief Justice” regarding the benchmark constitution.
“The doctrine of the roster masters’ declared is certainly put aside in the Supreme Court’s ruling.”
The petition further seeks a declaration that the IHC Administrative Committee was established by notices of February 3 and July 15, and that all their actions were “inflicted by the legal Mala Fide, which was illegal”. They asked the court to put aside these notices and all actions taken by the Administrative Committee because they were “illegal and non-judicial”.
In addition, they said: “The adoption and approval of the practice and procedural rules of the Islamabad High Court by the Islamabad High Court without prior approval by the High Court, its notice violated the Constitution of Articles 192(1) and 202 and in September the unlawful litigation was carried out.
The judge further stated in his prayer that the SC “guids the IHC to effectively monitor and monitor the functions of regional judiciary”, as provided in Article 203 of the Constitution, which provides for each advanced course and control all courts.
The petitioner asked the SC to “declare that the High Court cannot issue a writ to itself under article 199 of the Constitution.” Article 199 concerns the jurisdiction of the High Court.
They continued: “The court of the High Court neither has jurisdiction, can appear in the intermediary order of a single judge, nor can it control the proceedings of a single speaker, as if it were an inferior court or a court.”
Intermediate orders refer to temporary judgments passed in an ongoing case.
The petitioner asked the SC to declare that the High Court judges can only “limit their work to the execution of judicial duties 209, and Quo Warranto’s writs cannot maintain the trial of the judge.”
Article 209 of the Constitution authorizes the Supreme Judicial Committee to investigate the capabilities and conduct of judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court.
The petitioners summed up their statements, asking the SC to “give other relief deemed appropriate in the case of this case”.
And more
