- Judges urge SC to strike down ‘doctrine of master of roster,’ challenging bench formation and case transfers powers
- Judges allege misuse of administrative powers to sideline ‘dissenting voices,’ asking to restore collective judicial autonomy under Constitution
- Petitions, filed under Article 184(3) of Constitution, name IHC, its CJ, and the Federation of Pakistan as respondents
- Development underscores widening fissures within IHC, visible since Justice Dogar’s transfer and appointment as CJ
ISLAMABAD: In a rare move, five judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC)—Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Saman Rafat Imtiaz and Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan—on Friday submitted separate but identical petitions in the Supreme Court (SC), challenging the sweeping administrative powers of the IHC chief justice.
The petitions, filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, named the IHC, its Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, and the Federation of Pakistan as respondents. Article 184(3) empowers the SC to assume jurisdiction in matters of “public importance” linked to the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Petitions Target ‘Master of the Roster’
The judges urged the apex court to declare that administrative powers cannot be “deployed to undermine or trump judicial powers.” They argued that once a bench is assigned a case, the chief justice has no authority to reconstitute benches, transfer cases, or exclude judges from the roster at will.
The petitions stressed that such powers must rest with the high court collectively under Article 202 (rules of procedure) read with Article 192(1) (constitution of high courts). They explicitly sought a declaration that the controversial “Doctrine of the Master of the Roster”—which vests such powers in the chief justice—had already been set aside by past SC rulings.
جسٹس کیانی نے شیر افضل مروت سے کہا ہمارے پیچھے مت آنا ہم متنازعہ ہوجائیں گے
جس نے خان کو ستایا اس نے پھر رکشہ ہی چلایا 🖐🏿— Faisal Khan (@KaliwalYam) September 19, 2025
They further asked the court to strike down the IHC’s administration committees formed through notifications of Feb 3 and July 15, calling their formation mala fide and “coram non judice.” They also termed the approval of the IHC Practice and Procedure Rules 2025 by these committees illegal for lacking full-court approval.
Key Prayers in Petitions
The judges requested the SC to rule that the constitution of benches, transfer of cases, and issuance of rosters can only be done in accordance with full-court rules.
Declare that a division bench cannot sit in appeal over interlocutory orders of a single bench.
جسٹس طارق محمود جہانگیری نے جوڈیشل ورک سے روکنے کے اسلام آباد ہائیکورٹ کے فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل جبکہ پانچوں آزاد ججز نے الگ الگ درخواستیں بھی سپریم کورٹ میں دائر کی ہیں pic.twitter.com/3sNYsrA6oJ
— Ehtsham Kiani (@ehtshamkiani) September 19, 2025
Confirm that only the Supreme Judicial Council (Article 209) can restrain a judge from performing duties, and a writ of quo warranto cannot be used for a judge’s removal.
Bar high courts from issuing a writ to themselves under Article 199.
Direct the IHC to exercise proper supervision of district judiciary under Article 203.
The petitions concluded by seeking “any other relief deemed appropriate.”
Deepening Rift in the IHC
The development underscores widening fissures within the IHC, visible since Justice Dogar’s transfer and appointment as CJ.
In March 2024, five judges—including the current petitioners — along with Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, wrote to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) accusing intelligence agencies of interfering in judicial affairs, including harassment and surveillance of judges’ families. The letter prompted calls for inquiry, but the commission headed by ex-CJP Tassaduq Jillani collapsed after he recused himself, leading the SC to take suo motu notice.
Later that year, the 26th Constitutional Amendment introduced reforms, including changes to judicial appointments. Under the new rules, seniority was no longer the sole criterion, enabling the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to appoint from among the top five judges.
In February 2025, the five IHC judges opposed the transfer of then-LHC judge Sarfraz Dogar to Islamabad, warning it violated norms. Despite objections, Dogar was transferred on Feb 1, became acting CJ on Feb 13, and was formally sworn in as CJ on July 8. The five judges boycotted his oath-taking ceremony.
Administrative Restructuring and Controversies
Dogar’s arrival reshaped IHC administration. Justice Kayani, once senior puisne judge, lost key roles after rules were amended to give CJ Dogar control of the administration committee. The restructuring sidelined senior judges and fuelled resentment.
Disputes over case transfers, rosters, and tribunals soon followed. A series of rulings and counter-orders exposed an institutional rift:
In March 2025, judges questioned CJ Dogar’s power to reassign cases.
In April, controversy erupted after cases were shifted from single to division benches.
By May, disputes over contempt proceedings and Exit Control List (ECL) cases escalated into open defiance, with Justice Sattar refusing to accept a division bench’s suspension of his order.
In June, the SC upheld the transfer of judges from provincial high courts to IHC but left seniority questions to the president.
By July, CJ Dogar’s reshuffling of committees formally sidelined dissenting judges.
More disputes followed: suspension of Justice Ishaq’s orders on blasphemy law and Aafia Siddiqui cases; stripping Justice Imtiaz of powers in harassment inquiries, and challenges to Justice Jahangiri’s degree validity.
Growing Polarisation
Letters exchanged among judges in July and August 2025 revealed growing mistrust. Justices Sattar and Ishaq accused the administration of misusing powers to sideline dissenters. Senior bar associations also voiced concern when Justice Jahangiri was restrained from exercising judicial authority amid degree allegations.
The IHC’s internal divide reached new heights when Justice Imtiaz was removed from harassment complaint jurisdiction after she took cognisance of a complaint against CJ Dogar, deepening perceptions of bias in case assignments.
Significance of Friday’s Move
Legal experts say Friday’s petitions mark a turning point, as sitting high court judges rarely move the apex court against their own CJ. The case, they note, could redefine the balance of administrative power in superior courts, especially the scope of the “Master of the Roster” doctrine.
Whether the SC takes up the petitions immediately or consolidates them with pending matters remains to be seen. But the filings have laid bare the IHC’s simmering internal rifts — now squarely before the highest court.
Reactions from Bar Councils and Legal Community
The move has drawn swift reaction from the legal fraternity. Members of the Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) welcomed the petitions as a step toward accountability and transparency.
“This is a courageous move,” said a PBC representative. “It reflects the frustration judges themselves feel with the concentration of power in one office. The bar has long called for reforms to ensure fairness in case allocation.”
However, some senior lawyers expressed concern that the matter could deepen divisions within the judiciary at a time when public confidence is already fragile. “Internal disagreements should not spill over into public litigation,” said one SCBA member. “This risks portraying the judiciary as a house divided.”
