The federal government has justified the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s (JCP) recent decision to transfer three judges from the Islamabad High Court (IHC). Minister of State for Law and Justice Barrister Aqeel Malik emphasized that this action was part of a routine administrative rotation process and not a form of punishment, a measure long advocated by bar councils.
Speaking on a current affairs programme, Malik clarified that the JCP’s decisions were fully compliant with the Constitution and existing legal frameworks. He underlined that no member of the commission holds authority over another. Highlighting the judiciary as a service structure within Pakistan, he argued that, similar to other officers, judges could also be transferred through the commission’s established procedures.
Malik also noted that Justice Babar Sattar’s written objections had been presented to the commission. While the Constitution permits the commission to hear a judge if deemed necessary, Malik pointed out that such hearings are not obligatory. He added that if the Chief Justice of Pakistan had opposed convening the meeting, it would not have taken place, countering suggestions that the proceedings were improperly conducted.
Addressing the specifics of the transfers, Malik explained that Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, originally from Sindh, was being reassigned to her home province. He stressed the importance of rotating judges to prevent the formation of entrenched local affiliations, which can develop during extended postings. Malik reassured that the government had not undermined the judiciary’s independence or imposed any restrictions.
In a significant development, the JCP meeting chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi approved the transfer of Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani from IHC to Lahore High Court, Justice Babar Sattar to Peshawar High Court, and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz to Sindh High Court. These decisions were made by majority vote.
The commission’s statement revealed that the meetings were convened by the JCP secretary under Article 175A after the chairman declined to call the meeting requested by one-third of the commission members, citing specific reasons. The transfer proposals were initially put forth by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar. However, the matter stirred debate within judicial circles after Chief Justice Afridi expressed constitutional and institutional concerns about transfers lacking clear justification, cautioning that such actions might be perceived as punitive and could undermine judicial autonomy.
Additionally, the JCP announced the withdrawal of proposals to transfer Justice Arbab M Tahir from IHC to Balochistan High Court and Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro from IHC to Sindh High Court, as requested by the members who had requisitioned them. The commission also decided that vacancies arising from these transfers would be filled exclusively through further transfers, not by fresh appointments.
Meanwhile, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) voiced strong criticism of the transfers, raising concerns about their impact on judicial independence. PTI Chairman Barrister Gohar, speaking outside the Supreme Court, described the move as contrary to the principle of an independent judiciary and warned that it could create divisions within the judicial system.
He pointed out that all high courts currently have a full complement of judges, questioning the necessity of these transfers. Gohar argued that judge transfers are not the prerogative of any individual and emphasized that, under the Constitution, judges cannot be transferred without their consent. He condemned the practice of transferring judges based on personal preferences without giving them an opportunity to present their views, calling it an attack on the judiciary.
