- Apex court issues 55-page detailed verdict on ‘transfer of three judges to IHC,’ ruling transfers valid only in public interest
- 3–2 majority: Justice Mazhar, Justice Bilal, Justice Panhwar in favor; Afghan, Ahmad dissent
- Court rejects plea that transferred judges must retake oath, calls it continuation of office
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has upheld the president’s authority to transfer judges from one high court to another under specific conditions, while stressing that such transfers must only be made in the public interest and not as punitive or politically motivated measures.
The apex court’s constitutional bench (CB) on Thursday released a detailed 55-page verdict on petitions filed against the February transfer of three judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
On February 1, the Ministry of Law issued a notification transferring Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar from the Lahore High Court, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro from the Sindh High Court, and Justice Muhammad Asif from the Balochistan High Court — to the IHC. The notification was endorsed by the president.
Following the transfers, the IHC issued a new seniority list, ranking Justice Dogar as the senior puisne judge. Five IHC judges filed representations against the revised list, but the then IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq dismissed their objections. Subsequently, the judges and other petitioners, including PTI founder Imran Khan, challenged the notification and seniority list before the Supreme Court.
On June 19, the five-member CB, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, announced its short order with a 3–2 majority, ruling that the transfers were not unconstitutional. Justice Mazhar, Justice Shahid Bilal, and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar formed the majority, while Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad dissented.
In the majority opinion authored by Justice Mazhar, the bench clarified that Article 200 of the Constitution empowers the president to transfer a judge from one high court to another — but with critical safeguards. “A transfer can only be made in the public interest, not as a punitive measure or for political ends,” the order said.
It further held that non-consensual transfers coupled with forced retirement in case of refusal undermine judicial independence and circumvent the removal process laid down in Article 209. “Such provisions,” it observed, “militate against the concept of separation and independence of the judiciary.”
The court also ruled that the introduction of constitutional provisions requiring judges to accept transfers or appointments — such as to the Federal Shariat Court — under threat of deemed retirement would be unconstitutional.
On the issue of oath-taking, the petitioners had argued that the transferred judges should have taken a fresh oath. Rejecting this, the verdict clarified: “If a judge is transferred to another high court, it cannot be treated as a fresh appointment. A judge continues in office until superannuation, resignation, or removal under the Constitution.”
The judgment reaffirmed that judicial transfers are constitutionally valid but must be exercised with restraint and solely in the public interest.
