IHC larger bench reaffirms CJ as sole 'master of the roster'

ISLAMABAD: A larger bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday recalled a July 21, 2025, order passed by Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan in the case relating to Aafia Siddiqui, holding that the proceedings were conducted by a forum not lawfully constituted under the approved judicial roster.

In a detailed judgment authored by Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas, the four-member bench ruled that the chief justice is the sole “master of the roster” and that no bench can legally exercise jurisdiction unless constituted through a roster duly approved by the chief justice.

The controversy stemmed from proceedings held on July 21 last year, when Justice Khan issued contempt notices to the prime minister and the federal cabinet in a petition filed by Dr Fowzia Siddiqui seeking the release of her sister, Dr Aafia, from a US prison. The registrar’s office, however, did not execute the notices, stating that the judge was not assigned any bench duties under the weekly roster approved by the chief justice and was also listed as being on leave in the summer vacation schedule.

The matter was subsequently referred to a larger bench to determine the legal status of the July 21 proceedings.

The bench framed key questions, including whether a bench comes into legal existence merely because judges are physically present in court or only upon approval of the roster by the chief justice, whether a judge may self-assign a case, and whether the chief justice must obtain consent of a bench before consolidating identical petitions.

Examining Articles 175(2) and 202 of the Constitution, the court held that jurisdiction flows not from the personal authority of a judge but from the lawful constitution of a bench in accordance with prescribed rules. It ruled that while judicial power vests in the high court institutionally, its exercise in a specific matter requires activation through a bench formed under an approved roster.

The judgment emphasised that the mere presence of judges in a courtroom does not create a bench in the eyes of the law. A bench attains “juridical existence” only when constituted by the chief justice through an approved roster or specific order.

Referring to the High Court Rules and Orders, the court declared that the constitution of benches falls exclusively within the domain of the chief justice. A draft roster prepared by the deputy registrar (judicial) acquires legal force only upon approval by the chief justice, it added.

The larger bench also relied on Supreme Court precedents to hold that benches cannot self-constitute, self-select cases, or assume jurisdiction independently. Allowing judges to do so, the court observed, would undermine institutional discipline and be inconsistent with the constitutional framework.

On the issue of consolidation of cases, the bench ruled that the chief justice is not required to obtain consent from individual benches before withdrawing or consolidating identical or substantially similar petitions, terming such consolidation an institutional mechanism to avoid conflicting judgments.

Concluding that the July 21, 2025, proceedings were conducted without lawful authority, the larger bench declared the order void for want of jurisdiction and formally recalled it.

The judgment underscored that adherence to the roster system is a constitutional requirement essential for maintaining institutional discipline and safeguarding the rule of law within the high court.