|
The Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) and Lahore Bar Association (LBA) filed petitions in the Pakistani Supreme Court on Wednesday, challenging the constitutional bench's June 19 verdict that upheld the transfer of three judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), the Dawn reported on Thursday.
According to Dawn, the two separate but identical intra-court appeals (ICAs), submitted by senior lawyers Hamid Khan and Muhammad Waqar Rana, seek to overturn the June 19 ruling. This move comes shortly after five IHC judges--Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ijaz Ishaq Khan, and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz--also challenged the same verdict in the Supreme Court on June 28. The constitutional bench had ruled, by a narrow three-to-two majority, that the transfer of judges from three different high courts to the IHC was constitutionally valid. Following the decision, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan appointed Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar as the permanent chief justice of the IHC, and he took oath on July 8, the Dawn reported. The new petition asks the Pakistani Supreme Court to overturn the June 19 ruling, arguing it failed to address the crucial constitutional issue regarding the requirement for transferred judges to take a new oath before assuming office in the IHC. "It is an admitted fact that the transferred judges did not take oath upon their transfer to the IHC; therefore, they cannot legally assume office," the petition stated, as quoted by the Dawn. It also argues that since this key issue was unresolved, the June 19 judgement should be invalidated. The appeal further contends that by sending the matter back to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, the majority judgement effectively allowed the executive branch to fix legal flaws in the February 1 notification, thereby enabling executive interference in the judiciary's independence. The petition alleges this violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, the Dawn reported. It also claims that the June 19 verdict was unlawful and unfair, lacked jurisdiction, and was therefore void and legally ineffective. The petitioners argue that all actions and subsequent decisions by the Judicial Commission concerning the appointment of the IHC chief justice--taken pursuant to the disputed ruling--are unconstitutional and should be declared null and void. The petition emphasises that constitutional provisions must be interpreted as a whole, considering the core constitutional values and principles. It emphasises that judicial independence is a fundamental feature of the Constitution, which must be safeguarded from executive interference, particularly regarding the appointment, transfer, and removal of judges, as reported by Dawn. The Pakistani Supreme Court has recognised judicial independence as an essential constitutional principle, with separate provisions governing judicial appointments, transfers, and removals. (ANI)
|
