Power struggle in Pakistan's high court as senior judges challenge new appointments

A power struggle is unfolding in Pakistan’s Islamabad High Court as five senior judges challenge the appointment of three recently transferred judges, calling the move unconstitutional.

The judges have petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, seeking to overturn the transfers and block the newly assigned judges from performing their duties. The petition argues that the move violates judicial independence, undermines the separation of powers, and disrupts established seniority norms.

Filed through senior lawyers Munir A. Malik and Barrister Salahuddin, the petition specifically requests that Justice Sarfaraz Dogar be barred from serving as the acting chief justice of the Islamabad High Court (IHC). It also seeks to prevent Justice Khalid Soomro and Justice Muhammad Asif from carrying out judicial work.

The petitioners include Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Tariq Jahangiri, Justice Saman Rafat, and Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq.

Key officials named in petition

The Supreme Court petition names several high-profile respondents, including the president of Pakistan, the federal government through the law ministry, and the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP). Additionally, the registrars of the Supreme Court, IHC, Lahore High Court, Sindh High Court, and Balochistan High Court are also listed.

The judges being challenged in the petition—Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro, and Justice Muhammad Asif—were transferred from the Lahore, Sindh, and Balochistan high courts, respectively.

According to the petition, the transfers were made under Article 200(1) of the Constitution via a notification issued on Feb. 1, 2025. The next day, on Feb. 2, a revised roster of sitting was issued, elevating Justice Dogar—who was 15th in seniority at the Lahore High Court—to the second-most senior judge at the IHC. Justice Soomro, previously 26th in seniority at the Sindh High Court, was also given a prominent role.

The petition highlights that the transferred judges did not take a fresh oath before the IHC chief justice, as required by Article 194. Instead, they continued under the oaths they had previously taken at their respective high courts.

On Feb. 3, 2025, another notification granted Justice Dogar the status of senior puisne judge, placing the other two transferred judges at numbers 9 and 11 in seniority. The petition argues that these changes unfairly displaced long-serving IHC judges, including one who has been at the court since Dec. 23, 2015.

Control of IHC administration challenged

The petitioners also object to the restructuring of the IHC’s Administration Committee, which was reconstituted on Feb. 3.

The new committee includes Chief Justice Aamer Farooq (chairman), Justice Dogar, and Justice Soomro—giving two of the transferred judges significant administrative control.

The petition argues that such rapid promotions compromise judicial independence and allow judges with previously lower seniority to wield influence over critical decisions.

Questions raised

The petition raises several constitutional questions, including:

1. Was the transfer of judges genuinely in public interest?

2. Does Article 200 allow permanent transfers that alter inter-se seniority?

3. Did the move undermine the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s authority under Article 175A?

4. Can a judge assume office at a new high court without taking a fresh oath?

5. Do these transfers violate Supreme Court rulings on judicial seniority?

6. Does the move undermine the IHC’s independence as a separate high court?

7. Do these changes wrongly assume a federal unified judicial service?

8. Have these decisions unlawfully deprived existing IHC judges of legitimate expectations for promotion?

9. Were these transfers arbitrary and unreasonable under administrative law?

Supreme Court intervention sought

The petitioners have urged the Supreme Court to rule that the president of Pakistan does not have absolute authority under Article 200 to transfer judges without a public interest justification.

They also seek to have the revised seniority list, administrative committee notification, and acting chief justice appointment declared unconstitutional.