Supreme Court upholds presidential authority in judges' transfer case
Pakistan
Landmark verdict clarifies scope of judicial transfers, consent requirement
ISLAMABAD (Dunya News) - The Supreme Court of Pakistan Thursday released its detailed verdict in the high-profile judges' transfer and seniority case, spanning 55 pages and authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
The case was initiated after five judges of the Islamabad High Court challenged the legality of judicial transfers and seniority adjustments in the Supreme Court.
According to the detailed judgment, the President of Pakistan holds the constitutional authority to transfer a High Court judge to another High Court. This power is independent and not subject to other constitutional articles, but certain procedural safeguards and consultation requirements are necessary.
The ruling emphasised that any such transfer must be made with the judge’s consent.
Furthermore, the President is constitutionally obligated to consult the Chief Justice of Pakistan as well as the Chief Justices of both the transferring and receiving High Courts. In exceptional circumstances, temporary increases in the number of High Court judges can be made.
More to read: Three judges from provincial high courts transferred to IHC
The judgment also clarified that a Chief Justice of a High Court may request a judge from another High Court, but only after the concerned judge's consent and presidential approval post-consultation.
It further stated that the President’s powers, as defined by the Constitution, cannot be curtailed, and that vacant positions do not restrict transfer authority. A transfer is not to be treated as a new appointment, and should be considered separately from appointments under Article 175-A.
The court noted that arguments in the case were based on a letter submitted by the five High Court judges, which is still under consideration in the Supreme Court. The bench refrained from commenting further to avoid influencing the pending matter.
Allegations had surfaced suggesting that a Chief Justice was acting under pressure from the establishment. The court dismissed engaging with such claims, stating that any judge transferred under Article 200 could be subjected to similar accusations, but the constitutional bench would remain within its defined jurisdiction and would not respond to unverified allegations.
