Primepress
This is the current situation: five judges are up against the president, the federation, the Judicial Commission, the Supreme Court registrars, the high courts of Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan, and Islamabad, as well as three of one another.
The five, who are “serving confirmed judges” of the Islamabad High Court, have formally contested the recent transplantation of three justices from other high courts to the IHC, the subsequent change to the IHC’s seniority list, and the summari replacement of more senior, confirmed IHC judges on key committees by the recently transferred judges.
In light of what transpired at the IHC, the petitioners have urged the supreme court to use its original jurisdiction under Article 184(3) to consider their arguments.
As you may remember, the IHC’s problems started last year when a number of judges formally brought up the subject of security forces’ frequent interference in court matters. Similar objections later made by other high courts also supported the contents of their complaint, which was sent to Qazi Faez Isa, the top justice at the time. Regretfully, the issue was never resolved since the former chief justice lacked the resources to handle these allegations.
The idea that all judges who the current administration views as a “threat” are being routinely marginalized and “neutralized” by being denied their rightful promotions and/or stripped of any significant administrative duties they may have held has been growing, particularly since the 26th Amendment.
It has been quite disheartening to see that the petitions against the 26th Amendment have not received the serious attention and haste from the Supreme Court that they should have. As a result, the judiciary’s reputation as an unbiased and independent arbitrator has kept declining.
If this petition is accepted, it will at least force different actors to document the legal justifications for a number of decisions and actions that have been widely seen as depriving the judiciary—and the IHC in particular—of its institutional autonomy, independence, and freedom to operate without fear or favor.
In order to avoid complaints about conflicts of interest, it is also necessary to restate that petitions concerning the independence of the judiciary as an institution should only be heard by a full court. The mounting criticism cannot be ignored indefinitely by the institutional leadership.
By
