The judges affected by this decision include Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, who was transferred to the Lahore High Court; Justice Babar Sattar, who is now at the Peshawar High Court; and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, who was moved to the Sindh High Court.

The petition argues that these transfers violate constitutional guarantees and undermine judicial independence. It cites Articles 2-A and 175(3) of the Constitution as being violated by the transfers. The petitioner requested that the Peshawar High Court suspend the Judicial Commission’s decision until the case is resolved.

Advocate Hastham Khan Khalil stated that “the actions of the respondents were contrary to the mandate and requirements of Articles 2-A and 175(3) of the Constitution.” Irfan Hayat Bajwa criticized the lack of publicly disclosed reasons for these transfers. He noted that “the transfers were carried out without any publicly disclosed reasons, criteria, or demonstrable institutional necessity.”

Observers emphasize that judicial independence is a fundamental principle within Pakistan’s legal framework. The Islamabad High Court has not issued a formal seniority list of judges following these transfers, adding to concerns about transparency.

The petition names both the federal government and the Judicial Commission secretary as respondents. It seeks to declare the Judicial Commission’s decision un-Islamic, unconstitutional, and illegal.

The post Islamabad judge transfers challenge appeared first on 1News.

The transfers were made under Article 200 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) recommended these changes as part of a series of decisions regarding high court judges. Justice Kayani has been noted for his rulings in human rights cases, including a significant ruling that mandated husbands to return the entire dowry to wives in divorce cases.

Justice Kayani was elevated to the Islamabad High Court in December 2015. His transfer comes at a time when he has been a vocal critic of the 27th Amendment, which has implications for judicial independence. The Islamabad Bar Council expressed concerns that these transfers could be perceived as punitive measures against judges who challenge administrative decisions.

Reactions from legal experts:

• Chief Justice Yahya Afridi stated that the proposed transfers appeared ‘penal’ in nature.
• Hafeezullah Yaqoob remarked that the transferred judges ‘became victims of their own behaviour’.
• Barrister Qasim Nawaz Abbasi emphasized that transfers should not be used as a tool for victimisation.
• Minister of State for Law Barrister Aqeel Malik defended the JCP’s decisions, asserting they are in accordance with the Constitution and law.

The situation raises critical questions about judicial accountability and how administrative authority interacts with judicial functions. Concerns linger about whether these actions will undermine judicial independence or serve as necessary measures for accountability.

The post Justice mohsin akhtar kayani appeared first on 1News.

Previously, Justice Sattar and two other judges from the Islamabad High Court had expressed concerns about interference by intelligence agencies in judicial affairs. Their outspoken views may have contributed to their transfers.

The transfers occurred under Article 200 of the Constitution of Pakistan. This article was recently amended to eliminate the requirement for a judge’s consent before such transfers. This change has drawn criticism from various legal circles.

Key facts about the transfers:

• Justice Babar Sattar was transferred alongside Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz.
• The Judicial Commission’s decision on Sattar’s transfer passed with a vote of 10 to 5.
• The three judges had previously opposed the elevation of Justice Dogar as chief justice of the IHC.
• The transfers were criticized for lacking transparency and uniform criteria by lawyers’ bodies.

Lawyers’ organizations have voiced strong objections. The Islamabad Bar Council stated that “isolated and non-uniform transfers, undertaken without any disclosed objective criteria, damage public confidence and judicial integrity.” This reflects growing unease regarding the influence of executive powers over judiciary matters.

Abdul Moiz Jaferii Advocate noted, “Without an independent judiciary, one cannot have a functioning democracy or a functioning economy.” This sentiment echoes broader concerns about maintaining judicial independence in Pakistan.

The next ruling date is not yet confirmed, but legal experts are closely monitoring these developments. The implications for judicial practices could be significant as this situation unfolds.

The post Justice babar sattar transfer appeared first on 1News.

Afridi rejected a request to convene a meeting on judges’ transfers. He warned that transferring judges without clear justification would undermine judicial independence. He stated, “Transferring judges without clear justification would be ‘tantamount to punishment.'” This statement underscores his belief that such actions could harm the integrity of the judiciary.

The Chief Justice raised alarms about the potential impact on federal balance due to these proposed transfers. He emphasized that moving five out of nine judges could disrupt the judicial system significantly. Afridi argued that treating judges as transferable administrative officers is a dangerous trend that threatens judicial autonomy.

He specifically opposed transferring Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro back to the Sindh High Court. Afridi noted that no valid reasons were presented for these transfers or any institutional necessity behind them. He remarked, “Such moves could undermine judicial independence and autonomy.” This highlights his insistence on adherence to constitutional mechanisms when considering such changes.

Moreover, Afridi warned that these transfers could take on a penal character if not justified properly. He stressed that any transfer which operates as a removal from office cannot escape constitutional safeguards merely by its label. His remarks indicate a deep concern for maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

Afridi acknowledged that if members requisitioned a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), it must be convened. This reflects his commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability within the judicial system.

Previously, CJP Afridi supported the transfer of judges to promote inclusivity within the Islamabad High Court. However, his current stance indicates a shift in focus towards protecting judicial independence and ensuring proper representation across provinces.

The post Yahya Afridi Opposes IHC Transfers appeared first on 1News.