In an unusual move, five sitting judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SCP) last Friday, not to adjudicate but to file a petition. This initiative underscores the tensions simmering in Pakistan’s judiciary, with the petitioners challenging the administrative authority of their own Chief Justice, Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar. Judges Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Saman Rafat Imtiaz argue that the Chief Justice has exceeded constitutional boundaries in using his administrative powers, such as bench formation and case transfers, which they believe jeopardize judicial independence and litigants’ rights.
One of the critical aspects of the petition is the claim that cases assigned to a bench should remain undisturbed unless in exceptional circumstances, which are constitutionally justified. Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri took the issue further by filing a separate appeal. He contends that a recent order barring him due to questions over his academic credentials was done in “bad faith,” referencing the 2010 Iftikhar Chaudhry judgment, which underscores that depriving a judge of duties amounts to unlawful removal from office under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan.
The legal landscape is fraught with wider constitutional implications. The judges invoked several constitutional provisions, including Article 184(3) concerning public importance, and challenged the legality of the IHC’s procedural rules. They argue these rules were ratified by improperly constituted committees. As noted in the JURIST report, this dispute traces back to the judiciary’s resistance to military encroachment, dating back to 2023 and 2024, where judges publicly accused state agencies of interference.
The current petition highlights a broader judicial crisis, revealing how internal procedures could become instruments of control rather than administration, sidelining dissenting judges without recourse. The IHC’s alleged pro-executive bias in administrative decisions, such as arbitrary bench formation, amplifies these concerns.
The escalating judicial row is not merely a procedural issue; it questions the judiciary’s resolve in maintaining independence from external influences, particularly from the military establishment. The SCP is now tasked with determining the extent to which administrative powers can be exercised without infringing upon judicial authority and independence. The matter is further complicated by the fact that such a judicial power tussle could compromise public confidence in Pakistan’s legal institutions. Legal commentators and stakeholders are keenly observing whether the judiciary will address these internal crises head-on or allow them to persist unchallenged.
This judicial confrontation places at risk more than just the authority of the five concerned judges. It challenges whether the constitutional separation of powers retains its integrity in Pakistan. A lack of decisive action by the Supreme Court could erode the institution’s credibility, already under strain from the allegations of executive manipulation. Therefore, it falls upon the SCP to reaffirm its role as a constitutional guardian that can set clear boundaries on administrative overreach within the judiciary. How it chooses to address these petitions will significantly influence the judiciary’s public standing and internal cohesion.