Pakistan court limits case transfers, defends judicial independence

In a significant ruling aimed at preserving judicial protocol and transparency, Pakistan's federal capital court has restrained the deputy registrar judicial from transferring cases from single-member benches to division benches without a valid legal basis.

In a detailed 12-page order issued on Friday in the Islamabad High Court, Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan directed the deputy registrar judicial to stop transferring cases from single benches to division benches without a solid legal basis.

The court emphasized that case markings and transfers must strictly adhere to high court rules and orders and cannot be made on personal or administrative whims.

Brewing judicial controversy

The ruling comes in the wake of a tense courtroom standoff last month, when Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan discovered that a contempt petition — related to alleged violations of legal visitation rights for former Prime Minister Imran Khan in Adiala Jail — had been abruptly removed from his docket and assigned to a larger bench.

Outraged, Justice Khan publicly questioned the legality of the reassignment, warning that such practices, if unchecked, could threaten judicial independence and erode public trust in the judiciary.

The case, brought by lawyer Mishal Yousafzai and argued by advocates Niazullah Niazi and Shoaib Shaheen, accused Adiala Jail officials of defying court orders that allowed Khan access to his legal counsel.

Judicial disquiet

The controversy started over recent transfers of judges from provincial high courts to the Islamabad High Court—allegedly bypassing the established principle of seniority.

Former Prime Minister Imran Khan has challenged these transfers in the Supreme Court, arguing that they are unconstitutional and politically motivated. Among those controversially transferred is Acting Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar, who now sits on the bench hearing Khan’s case.

Transfers must follow legal guidelines

The ruling establishes that the deputy registrar judicial is authorized only to mark and fix cases for benches in line with procedural rules and cannot transfer or withdraw a case from one bench to another without legal grounds. The court emphasized that transfers between benches can only be justified if there is a clear legal interpretation involved or a series of similar cases that merit reassignment.

Referring to a precedent set in the Asif Zardari case, the court stated that it is the prerogative of the judge, not the administration, to decide whether to hear a case, particularly when there is no expression of bias or request for recusal from the judge.

Chief justice’s administrative powers not absolute

The court also criticized the office of the acting chief justice for failing to assist the judicial side adequately in this matter, noting that the handling of the case transfer had placed the court in an “embarrassing situation”.

It clarified that while the chief justice has the authority to approve the judicial roster, he does not possess the unilateral power to reassign ongoing cases without reference to the high court’s procedural framework or involvement of the administrative committee.

"The fixing of cases is a judicial matter and cannot be equated with administrative authority," the judgment stated.

Practical protocols and structural clarifications

To prevent future irregularities, the court directed that any proposal for case reassignment must be routed through the Reader of the concerned judge. Any such transfer must be brought before the senior-most judge on the new bench for approval.

The court noted that certain benches had specifically requested not to be assigned particular categories of cases, such as tax matters, and those preferences must be respected.

The ruling also criticized recent actions by the Acting Chief Justice, who had reassigned a series of cases to Division Bench II without providing a list or legal rationale. One such case had been pending before Justice Ejaz Ishaq Khan for 16 hearings, with significant progress already made, raising serious procedural concerns over its sudden transfer.

Tyrian White case

The judgment invoked the Tyrian White case, in which a larger bench of the Islamabad High Court ruled that while the Chief Justice can constitute benches, any reconstitution or alteration must be based on legal necessity—not discretion—and only if the existing bench recuses itself or provides a valid reason.