•Qualification issues cannot exceed the constitutional transfer, hold Mazhar Supreme Court
•Judge Panhwar recommends creating a unified list of seniority for all High Court judges
Islamabad: Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar ruled on Thursday that the judge would be transferred from one high court to another under Article 200(1) of the Constitution, simply because it affects the elderly.
Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar emphasized in his detailed judgment: “The best interest of the entire public is always to handle the case quickly rather than shopping in the forum.”
Judge Magyar presided over the Supreme Court’s five times of the Constitutional Judge, and the judge heard Joint petition to the five judges of the High Court of Islamabad (IHC) – Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz – New oath under Article 194 and read Schedule III of the Constitution.
Judge Mazar noted that the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) also filed a petition that was initially determined with those petitions but was later withdrawn on April 17. It makes it clear that the Parent Bar Association accepted the transfer of judges and did not consider the transfer of judges that were contrary to the public interest or judicial independence or judicial independence.
Article 200 of the Constitution clearly states that the “public interest” is not a precedent or a difficult rule, and is also a professional, and consults to decide, from the perspective of relevant constitutional articles.
If the consultation would consider the proposed transfer to be politically motivated, Mala Fide or in violation of the public interest, they may retain their consent during the consultation process. However, in this case, the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi and other Chief Justices of the High Court gave their unanimous consent.
Judge Masakhal said: “All transfers were agreed and no assignee judge turned to the court for help, claiming that his transfer was conducted without consent, coercion or for punitive or political reasons.”
Judge Magyar pointed out that nothing was clarified and could explain how the transfer adversely affects the public interest. “Have the IHC’s work stopped? Did the assignee judge fail to cause his duties? Did the court stop functioning?” He miraculously.
Regarding the senior issue, Judge Mazar clarified that such disputes belong to the administration of the Chief Justice of the High Court. Whether the transfer is permanent or temporary, this should be specified in the transfer notice.
In another note, Judge Salahuddin Panhwar proposed the creation of a unified national high-level list of all High Court judges. He suggested that the list should be negotiated with the CJP and notified the Presidential Office annually to apply specifically to IHC transfers, but to adhere to the principles of diversity. He believes that such reforms will ensure transparency, equality and consistency in judicial administration and matters.
Posted in Dawn on September 26, 2025
