Category: National News

September 20, 2025

Five Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges — namely Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mah­mood Jahangiri, Saman Rafat Imtiaz and Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan — submitted separate petitions at the Supreme Court (SC) together on Friday against a number of issues affecting the court recently, from the composition of benches to rosters to case transfers.

The petitions, available with Dawn.com, named the IHC, IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and the Federation of Pakistan as respondents and were filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

Article 184(3) sets out the SC’s original jurisdiction and enables it to assume jurisdiction in matters involving a question of “public importance” with reference to the “enforcement of any of the fundamental rights” of Pakistan’s citizens.

In their petitions, the judges moved the SC to declare that administrative powers could not be “deployed to undermine or trump the judicial powers” of the high court judges.

They further asked the apex court to declare that a chief justice of the high court was “not authorised to constitute benches or transfer cases” once a high court bench had been assigned a case.

Moreover, the petitions sought the declaration that the chief justice of a high court “cannot exclude available judges from the roster, at will, and use the power to issue a roster to oust judges from performing judicial functions”.

The SC was also urged to declare “that the constitution of benches, transfer of cases and issuance of roster can only be done in accordance with the rules adopted by the entirety of the High Court under Article 202 (rules of procedure), read with Article 192(1) (constitution of high court) of the Constitution”.

The petitioners also asked the apex court to declare that the “decision-making” with respect to the constitution of benches, issuance of roster and transfer of cases could not “solely rest in the hands of the chief justice”.

“Declare that the ‘Doctrine of the Master of the Roster’ has definitely been set aside in Supreme Court decisions,” the petitions read.

The petitions further sought the declaration that formation of IHC’s administration committees through notifications dated February 3 and July 15 and all the actions taken by them “suffer from mala fide in law and are illegal”. They asked the court to set aside these notifications and all actions taken by the administration committees constituted under them for “being illegal and coram non judice”.

Moreover, they stated: “Declare that the adoption and approval of Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025, by the illegally constituted administration committee, and its notification without prior approval of the high court is in breach of Article 192(1) and Article 202 of the Constitution, and its subsequent endorsement in September, are illegal and of no legal effect.”

The judges further stated in their prayers that the SC “direct the IHC to provide effective supervision and oversight” over the functioning of the district judiciary, as mandated by the Constitution under Article 203, which states that each high court shall supervise and control all courts subordinate to it.

The petitioner asked the SC to “declare that a high court cannot issue a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution to itself.” Article 199 pertains to the jurisdiction of a high court.

They continued: “A Division Bench of high court is neither vested with jurisdiction to sit in appeal over interlocutory orders of a single bench nor can assume control over the proceedings of a single bench as if it is an inferior court or tribunal.”

An interlocutory order refers to a temporary judgment passed in an ongoing case.

The petitioners requested the SC to declare that a high court judge can only be “restrained from working from performing judicial duties under Article 209 and a writ of quo warranto seeking the removal of a judge from office is not maintainable.”

Article 209 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Judicial Council to carry out inquiries into the capacity and conduct of Supreme Court and high court judges.

The petitioners concluded their statement by asking the SC to “grant any other relief deemed appropriate in the circumstances of this case.”

Rift within IHC

Today’s development has once again highlighted deep fissures within the IHC, which gained prominence when Justice Dogar was appointed as the high court’s chief justice.

The fissures in the high court can be traced back to March last year, when in a startling letter written to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) members, the five IHC judges, along with Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir had accused the country’s intelligence apparatus of interference in judicial affairs, including attempts to pressure judges through abduction and torture of their relatives and secret surveillance inside their homes.

Widespread calls subsequently emerged from various quarters for a probe into the investigation, amid which former chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) Qazi Faez Isa summoned a full court meeting of the Supreme Court’s judges. After a meeting between CJP Isa and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on March 28, the duo decided to form a commission to investigate the concerns of interference in judicial affairs following the cabinet’s approval. However, former CJP Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, who was appointed to head the commission, subsequently recused himself from the matter, leading to the apex court taking a suo motu notice of the issue.

In November 2024, the Supreme Judicial Council, chaired by incumbent CJP Yahya Afridi, who also heads the council, had considered different options concerning the letter and agreed to expand consultations, noting that the code of conduct of judges applies to heads of different institutions as well as judges.

Meanwhile, the 26th Constitutional Amendment was passed in October 2024, bringing many changes, most of which pertain to the judiciary.

Rumours began circulating in December 2024 that the judicial bureaucracy was reportedly planning to bring a judge from the Lahore High Court (LHC) to lead the IHC after the elevation of the then-IHC chief justice.

Traditionally, the senior puisne judge of a high court was appointed as the chief justice, but the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) had introduced new rules to bypass the seniority criterion in light of the 26th Amendment. The JCP had proposed that the chief justice of a high court could be appointed from among the panel of five senior-most judges.

In February 2025, the five IHC judges had formally opposed the then-potential transfer of then-LHC Justice Dogar, warning that his elevation as the IHC chief justice would violate constitutional procedures and judicial norms.

The letter was addressed to CJP Afridi, then-IHC CJ Aamer Farooq, LHC Chief Justice Aalia Neelum and Sindh High Court Chief Justice Mohammad Shafi Siddiqui and raised serious concerns over the possible transfer.

However, Justice Dogar, who was sworn in as a LHC judge in June 2015, was formally transferred to the IHC on February 1. His transfer, along with those of two other judges, to the IHC had also impacted its seniority list and led to many changes as Justice Kayani, who was senior puisne jud­ge before Justice Dogar’s transfer, has been removed from the top decision-making committee. Justice Kayani was also stripped of the position of inspection judge of the special courts.

The IHC administration had formally notified Jus­t­ice Dogar as the senior puisne IHC judge of the Islam­abad High Court and also revi­sed its seniority list.

The seniority list is as follows: Justice Dogar, Justice Kayani, Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, Justice Jahangiri, Jus­tice Sattar, Justice Ishaq Khan, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Justice Saman Imtiaz, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro, Justice Mohammad Azam Khan, Justice Mohammad Asif and Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas.

The five IHC judges had then sent a representation to the IHC chief justice and CJP Afridi against placing them down on the seniority list but this was rejected.

Justice Dogar was appointed as the acting IHC chief justice on Feb 13. The next day, he took the oath in a ceremony. All IHC judges were invited, but five of them — the same ones who filed petitions in the SC today — did not attend the ceremony and boycotted it.

Following the development, the IHC went through a major administrative restructuring, which notably reduced the authority of senior puisne judge Justice Kayani — who previously held key decision-making roles — following amendments to the high court rules.

The IHC Administration Com­mittee, previously comprising the chief justice, the senior puisne judge and a senior judge, was restructured to include CJ Dogar and two of his nominees. This reconstitution significantly altered the court’s decision-making authority.

On Feb 20, the five judges had petitioned the SC to restrain Justice Dogar from carrying out his duties as the acting IHC chief justice.

In March, Justice Sattar and Justice Imtiaz had expressed concerns over the demanding of gratuity by the court staff and changes to the rules that stripped the senior puisne judge of his powers.

A subsequent consolidation of all petitions related to ex-PM Imran Khan’s jail conditions apparently widened the gulf among the IHC judges as Justice Ishaq had raised critical questions about the transfer of a case pending before his court.

The tensions simmering among the IHC judges seemingly boiled over on March 21, when three members of the IHC Tribunal — who were replaced earlier this month when the tribunal was reconstituted — declared that neither the acting chief justice nor the president had the authority to dissolve or reconstitute the tribunal without legal justification.

Around the end of March, Justice Sattar had questioned the chief justice’s authority to administratively reassign cases, emphasising that such decisions fell within the jurisdiction of judges and the deputy registrar.

A fresh controversy emerged within the IHC in April over the acting chief justice’s authority to unilaterally transfer cases from single benches to division benches. The move reportedly spar­ked concerns about judicial procedure and administrative transparency.

A division bench comprising Justice Kayani and Justice Ishaq, while upholding an order previously issued by Justice Sattar, had expressed surprise at the recent transfer of several cases without clear legal justification.

The two judges subsequently ruled that the acting chief justice had exceeded his authority by transferring cases from one bench to another, calling for the ambiguity in judicial rules to be addressed through a full court meeting.

Meanwhile, amid the growing concerns among senior IHC judges over the shifting of cases between benches, Justice Minhas had issued a judicial verdict reinforcing the authority of the chief justice to assign and reassign cases, backing the top judge’s ex­­clusive role as the “Master of the Ros­ter”.

Ten­sions within the IHC escalated sharply on April 28, as two separate but interlinked proceedings exposed a deepening ‘institutional rift’ over judicial authority, procedural conduct and internal accountability.

Justice Sattar had issued a strongly worded order criticising the registrar’s office for not listing a case related to the removal of the former director general of Malir Development Authority from the no-fly list. The judge had issued the contempt notices to the heads of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and the Immi­gration and Passport.

However, a division bench comprising Justice Dogar had already suspended the contempt notices after the penalised government officials filed an intra-court appeal. The bench also merged the case with another identical matter. Subsequently, the case was not fixed before Justice Sattar on April 28 as was scheduled.

Justice Sattar had lambasted the deputy registrar (judicial) for what he described as “prima facie defiance” of court orders. He had summoned court officials to explain why the case was not listed before him and also the removal of his prior orders from the high court’s public database.

The case listing controversy escalated in May as two judges accused Justice Sattar of conducting unauthorised proceedings in a stay matter. However, in a dramatic courtroom episode, Justice Sattar had openly challenged the authority of a division bench, rejecting its order suspending his previous directive to remove a citizen’s name from the Exit Control List (ECL).

During the proceedings, the assistant attorney general had presented a copy of the division bench’s interim order, stating that Justice Sattar’s directive had been suspended. However, Justice Sattar had responded that he would continue hearing the case and issue a comprehensive judgement, arguing that the division bench could not lawfully suspend a single bench’s order in such a manner.

The simmering tensions among the high court judges had touched new heights around the end of May after a three-member tribunal declared another three-member tribunal comprising Justices Sattar, Ishaq and Jahangiri as “defunct” and scrapped the order regarding the repatriation of the judges.

On June 19, the Supreme Court’s Constitutional Bench (CB), by a majority of 3-2, had ruled that the transfer of three judges from provincial high courts to the IHC was in line with the Constitution. However, the bench had left it up to the president of Pakistan to determine the seniority amongst judges, based on their service records. The decision was later appealed by the five IHC judges.

However, Justice Dogar later took his oath as the IHC CJ on July 8. The five IHC senior judges were sidelined in the subsequent reshuffling of key committees.

On July 16, Justice Ishaq had given the federal government 30 days to constitute a commission to investigate misuse of the blasphemy law. However, a division bench comprising Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and Justice Mohammad Azam Khan later suspended the order’s imp­le­mentation.

Another controversy subsequently emerged in the Aafia Siddiqui case. On July 21, Justice Ishaq had put on notice the prime minister and the entire federal government. However, there was a question mark on the proceedings, since Justice Ishaq was not scheduled to hear the case or any other case that week.

The roster, approved by CJ Dogar, had not listed any case before the judge in question, since he was on a five-week leave from July 20. As a result, the IHC registrar’s office didn’t issue a cause list — schedule of cases — for Justice Ishaq’s court.

A senior official from the IHC chief justice’s office had told Dawn the cause list of Justice Ishaq’s court was cancelled and there was no case before him. Sources had said that Justice Ishaq’s staff had asked the registrar to issue a revised cause list, since the judge intended to hear some cases on July 21, despite being on leave. How­ever, the request was declined.

Subsequently, insiders claim­­ed, the judge’s staff had “issued a cause list bypassing the chief justice”. In his order, Justice Ishaq had accused the chief justice’s office of “deliberately sabotaging his judicial authority” by refusing to amend the weekly roster.

The registrar’s office subsequently put on hold the processing of the contempt of court notices. Later in August, the court reassig­ned the case from Justice Ishaq to Justice Minhas as part of a new “Roster of Sitting” that took effect from September 1, according to a court cause list.

Instead, earlier in August, Justice Ishaq was placed on a special division bench with Justice Sattar to hear tax references and related commercial matters, a posting that prevents members from sitting as single-judge courts.

Sources had said the two judges would not hold single benches until a backlog of around 2,000 Commercial Litigation Corridor cases was cleared. In the meantime, petitions on their individual dockets would be taken up by other available benches. The decision was taken by CJ Dogar.

Legal experts had said that with the development, the IHC’s senior judges, including those who had challenged the transfer and subsequent seniority of the incumbent chief justice, would now be occupied with clearing the years-long backlog of financial cases.

Earlier this month, a full court IHC meeting had adopted the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2025 despite strong resistance from senior judges. The rules were passed by a slim majority, while a proposal from two judges, seeking changes to the meeting’s agenda, was rejected.

A day before the full court meeting, Justice Babar Sattar and Justice Ishaq wrote a letter to their colleagues, expressing grave concerns that administrative powers were allegedly being misused to “sideline dissenting judges”. Later, they also objected to the way the rules were presented at the meeting, complaining that “insufficient time” had been provided for a proper review.

Justice Sattar and Justice Ishaq reportedly objected to the way case assignments were being structured, alleging that the process was “manipulated to favour” judges transferred to the IHC along with the chief justice, while sidelining permanent judges who had opposed his transfer.

Last week, the IHC fixed for hearing a petition challenging the appointment of Justice Jahangiri over allegations of possessing an invalid law degree. In an extraordinary development on Tuesday, CJ Dogar and Justice Azam restrained the senior judge from exercising his judicial powers.

The decision sparked immediate outrage among the bar associations. His degree issue surfaced last year, while he was hearing the election petitions of runners-up of all three constituencies of Islamabad.

The lawmakers of the ruling party were visibly not comfortable with the proceedings of the election tribunal and the government, in the meantime, issued an ordinance that enabled the appointment of a retired judge to head the election tribunal.

Matters came to a head when the IHC administration stripped Justice Imtiaz of her powers to entertain harassment complaints after she took cognisance of a complaint lodged by lawyer Imaan Mazari against CJ Dogar.

A circular from her office had said that, being the competent authority under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010, the inquiry committee comprising Justice Ishaq, Justice Tahir and Justice Imtiaz was formed to conduct an inquiry into the complaints of harassment.

However, the court administration had sw­iftly de-notified her as the competent au­­thority and replaced her with Justice Minhas.

Source: www.dawn.com

September 20, 2025

“The demolition of the IHC and its independence, that is being witnessed today, is only because the petitioner judges dared to object to the executive’s interference in their judicial work and uphold their oath as judges of the IHC.”

These are the words of five Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges who have moved the Supreme Court (SC) against the IHC itself, and its top judge.

Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mah­mood Jahangiri, Saman Rafat and Ejaz Ishaq Khan have filed similar petitions in the country’s apex court. Their applications also outline the events that led to them making the move.

Here’s how these events unfolded, as detailed in their pleas.

---

It began in Justice Aamer Farooq’s tenure

During the tenure of the previous IHC chief justice, now Supreme Court Justice Aamer Farooq, the petitioners had raised the “issue of executive interference in judicial work and attempts to pressurise the judges to influence judicial outcomes in certain cases”.

“These serious concerns” were first brought to the knowledge of the then-chief justice of the IHC, informally, in a meeting of all the judges of the high court. The same concerns were brought to the attention of the then-chief justice of Pakistan, Umar Ata Bandial, during a meeting at his residence in May 2023, and the petitioners continued to raise the issue, along with other administrative matters, in several meetings with the then-IHC CJ.

According to the petitioners, these issues had a “serious impact on the administration of justice and independence of the judiciary”.

“However, no response that would adequately address the serious concerns was forthcoming.”

Subsequently, six IHC judges “felt constrained to formally notify the then chief justice, through a letter dated May 10, 2023, regarding the attempts to assert pressure to influence judicial outcomes”. These judges also included the ones who petitioned the SC on Friday.

The six judges had recommended to the then-IHC CJ to initiate appropriate proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution — which deals with contempt of court — to address the matter.

“No proceedings were, however, initiated.”

In this connection, the six IHC judges also met the senior-most judges of the SC — then-CJP Bandial, then-senior puisne judge of the apex court, Qazi Faez Isa, and Justice Ijazul Ahsan — the same month “in another attempt to seek appropriate response from within the institution”.

“However, the attempts to pressurise and intimidate the judges continued and were reported to the relevant offices within the institution.”

Then, in March last year, an SC ruling set aside the dismissal of former IHC senior puisne judge Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui. He had been dismissed as a judge of the high court in October 2018 by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) — which decides on cases of misconduct of the judges of the superior judiciary — over a fiery speech he had delivered that year at the Rawalpindi Bar Association targeting a security institution.

In his speech, Justice Siddiqui had accused Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of influencing court proceedings and ‘forming benches of its choice’.

In view of the SC’s 2024 ruling and “continued interference by the executive branch in the affairs of the Islamabad High Court,” the six judges had also approached the SJC members and SC judges to “seek guidance on the duty of a judge to report and respond to executive interference through their letter dated March 25, 2024”.

In April, the SC took suo motu notice of the matter, and in the first hearing, the SC directed all stakeholders, including the high courts, to furnish their proposals “as to what should be the institutional response and mechanism to address the issues like the ones raised in the letter.”

But, instead of convening a full court meeting to deliberate and discuss the proposals, then-IHC CJ Farooq “deemed it appropriate to only circulate the order and seek proposals”, the judges regret.

Subsequently, Justices Arbab Tahir, Babar Sattar and Saman Rafat were “constrained” to write letters to the then-CJ, urging him to convene a full court
meeting for consultation between members of a collegiate body, as opposed to merely circulating the order, and seeking proposals.

“A full court meeting of the IHC was thereafter convened on April 23, 2024, wherein it was unanimously decided that a formal reporting mechanism and appropriate remedial action shall be taken in cases of any executive interference.”

The proposals were also submitted to the SC, but the matter remains “pending and no substantial proceedings have been conducted since last year”.

‘Takeover of the IHC’

In the days following this development, “the takeover of Islamabad High Court” by way of transfer of judges from the provincial high courts to IHC was initiated, and already serving judges of the IHC were “deprived” of their “due seniority”. The transferred judges included incumbent IHC CJ Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar.

This move impacted the IHC’s seniority list, leading to Dogar’s appointment to the top post.

Keeping in mind their code of conduct and comity of judges, the petitioner judges once again reached out to the then-IHC CJ to express reservations
and concerns regarding any transfer with the clear intent to “penalise the already serving judges” of the IHC.

Some of the petitioner judges also spoke to the then-chief justice of Pakistan, and voiced their concerns regarding such transfers and the “deleterious effect” they may have on the IHC and its independence. These transfers were carried out with “indecent haste”, which “forced” the petitioner judges to formally write to all relevant chief justices and ask them to hold “meaningful consultation” in line with Article 200 of the Constitution. This provision of the Constitution deals with the transfer of high court judges.

The chief justices were also asked to advise the president against any such transfer that would “erode the independence” of the IHC.

“Nevertheless, three judges from different provincial high courts …
were transferred to the IHC right before the elevation of the then-chief justice of the IHC.

“Immediately after the transfer process was purportedly completed, the then-chief justice of the IHC issued a revised roster and seniority list on February 3, 2025,” the petition notes.

Then, during a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan on February 10, convened to consider elevations of judges of high courts to the SC, then-IHC CJ Aamer Farooq was nominated as a judge of the country’s apex court.

Two days later, President Asif Zardari notified his appointment and CJ Dogar was appointed as the acting IHC CJ, “after having spent not even two weeks” at the Islamabad High Court.

“Left with no other remedy, the petitioner judges were constrained to challenge the transfer of three judges and the revised seniority before the Supreme Court of Pakistan.”

The SC issued a short order on their plea on June 19, remanding the issue of seniority to the president. This order, however, was challenged through an intra-court appeal in the apex court. But “detailed reasons” for the SC ruling on June 19 are still awaited, and the subsequent appeals are yet to be fixed.

These events also led to the “ouster of senior-most judges of the Islamabad High Court from the administration of the Court and unlawful adoption of the Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025,” the judges say.

“The intent behind the transfer became apparent immediately when, in complete violation of the applicable rules and the practice of the court”, a crucial administration committee of the IHC was reconstituted to comprise Justices Aamer Farooq, Dogar and Khadim Hussain Soomro. Notably, among them, Justices Dogar and Soomro were newly transferred to the IHC then.

“Justice Dogar, at number 15 in the Lahore High Court, was a long way off from serving on the administration committee under the Rules and Orders of the Lahore High Court. Similarly, Justice Soomro, appointed as an additional judge as recently as April 14, 2023, was at seniority number 26, in the Sindh High Court, Karachi, but was made a member of the administration committee in the IHC.

“In short, immediately after their transfers, Justices Dogar and Soomro were handed control of the administration of the IHC.”

Earlier in February, Justice Babar Sattar had also written to the IHC registrar. Citing news reports, he had noted that the rules determining the composition of administration committee had been amended. The same month, Justice Saman Rafat also sought information about the reported amendments.

It was emphasised that the power to amend or promulgate rules applicable to the high court vests with the high court, as defined in Article 202 of the Constitution.

“Any amendment to the rules without the approval of the full court is unconstitutional and illegal.”

Days later, the IHC registrar “asserted” that the IHC Practice and Procedure Rules had been approved by the administration committee and were at the publication stage.

This led to more letters by Justice Rafat, to the IHC registrar and all IHC judges. In her letters, she emphasised that under the Constitution, only a full court was empowered to adopt new rules or changes to the applicable rules.

“Since no full court meeting has been convened for this purpose, any purported amendment adoption is illegal.”

Upon receiving no response, she sought an update on the matter on April 24, but, in “complete disregard of the law, the Constitution and settled practice”, the IHC registrar circulated a letter stating that the Practice and Procedure
Rules, 2025 had been published through a gazette notification dated February 18, and that the file had been placed before the CJ for approval.

“The Practice and Procedure Rules were purportedly adopted, approved and published without any approval of the full court and even after publication in the gazette, the judges of the Islamabad High Court had to wait for chief justice’s approval to receive a copy.

“For months, the petitioner judges’ efforts to seek information regarding the rules being adopted or amended was met with deafening silence,” the petitions read.

The Practice and Procedure Rules and the Islamabad High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2025 were placed before a full court months after their adoption, “when the chief justice of the Islamabad High Court felt assured that he had the majority for, after-the-fact, endorsement in [the] full court. Both sets of rules were then endorsed by a majority of six to five votes without any deliberation”.

At the time the copy of the Practice and Procedure Rules was circulated, it became apparent that the rules were purportedly notified on February 7 after approval by and under the instruction of the “illegally constituted” administration committee, comprising the then-chief justice, who was scheduled to be considered for elevation to the SC within 72 hours, and two transferred judges who had assumed charge of the IHC merely 72 hours before approving the rules.

“The petitioner judges, nevertheless, welcomed the long overdue convening of the full court meeting by the chief justice and hoped that it may be an opportunity to raise and discuss the striking issues relating to dispensation of justice by the Islamabad High Court.

“These attempts were stymied during the meeting.

“The conduct of the chief justice and his approach to institutional consultation left the petitioner judges horrified, who also declared that even the minutes of the full court meeting would not be shared with the judges. Consequently, some of the petitioner judges were constrained to write dissenting notes to document their opinion regarding the approval of the Practice and Procedure
Rules in particular, and the manner in which the meeting was conducted in general.”

CJ Dogar’s ‘misuse of administrative powers’

It was in these circumstances that Justice Dogar assumed the role of the IHC CJ. In this position, he would later use his administrative powers to “render the petitioner judges dysfunctional [and] undermine the independence of judiciary and credibility of the Islamabad High Court,” the judges say.

Justice Dogar, since assuming charge as the IHC CJ, “has consistently used administrative powers in violation of settled principles of comity of judges and judicial independence to render the petitioner judges, who challenged his
transter and seniority, dysfunctional”.

“The chief justice, in complete disregard of the settled law by the Supreme Court, has repeatedly used administrative powers to restrict some of the petitioner judges from exercising their judicial functions and powers, and to interfere with the discharge of their judicial functions.”

“Under Chief Justice Dogar’s watch, the office has refused to issue cause lists in breach of judicial orders and has transferred part-heard matters from the docket of one court to another without such powers vesting in the chief justice.

“Chief Justice Dogar has used his administrative power to reconstitute benches and transfer cases being adjudicated from the bench seized of them to another.”

“Chief Justice Dogar continues to use his power to issue the roster of sitting judges to render senior judges dysfunctional. Chief Justice Dogar has constituted divisional benches headed by junior judges and has relieved senior judges of such responsibility, including the senior puisne judge, who is no longer part of any divisional bench.”

“Justice Babar Sattar and Justice Sardar Ejaz can no longer preside over single benches, and the cases pending in their dockets, including part-heard cases, have been arrogated to other judges. The purported excuse used to achieve this purpose is a policy decision taken in a meeting of the National Judicial Policy Making Committee to create a Commercial Litigation Corridor within high courts.”

“Chief Justice Dogar has used administrative powers in a manner that lacks transparency in fixation of cases and bench constitution. There are no objective criteria guiding the composition of benches. IHC cause lists manifest arbitrary marking of cases. As against the high court rules that vest the function of marking cases in the office of the deputy registrar, all cases are fixed under the instructions of the chief justice.”

The petitioner judges say they have repeatedly raised the issue of bench formation and fixation of cases “for years now”. However, despite repeated efforts, the issue has remained unaddressed and the CJ continues to exercise powers regarding bench formation and fixation of cases “unilaterally without any specified objective framework and criteria”.

“While exercising administrative authority in an opaque manner that impacts which judges hear what cases, Chief Justice Dogar refuses to engage in a conversation regarding the need for an objective framework to evaluate the performance of judges. [The] Islamabad High Court instead engages in issuing skewed statistics regarding the discharge of judicial work.

“These statistics are designed to cultivate an impression that some judges work efficiently, while others do not work at all. These statistics are issued
without any regard to the nature (and number) of cases marked to the performing judges versus others, and the nature, quality and length of orders that make up the disposal figures.”

“Chief Justice Dogar, has opted to assume powers to transform the chief justice’s office into a monocracy. He has appropriated the power backed by no law to issue a circular requiring judges to seek an NOC (no-obejction certificate) from the chief justice to travel out of the country. Neither the Constitution nor the law vests such rule-making power in the office of the chief justice to lord over his peers,” the petitions state.

“While the right to seek earned leave remains an entitlement under the presidential order regulating the terms and conditions of service of judges, to hold that the leave cannot be sought except during summer or winter holidays is tantamount to suspending a statutory entitlement. And to require judges to seek an NOC for travel abroad even during holidays or while a judge is on leave is plain absurd apart from being unconstitutional.”

“A circular has also been issued barring individual court’s from uploading final judgements on the website of the IHC as a “means of controlling public access to judgements”.

“Chief Justice Dogar has transformed the office of chief justice into an autocracy, in an effort to reduce the judiciary to a regiment. Such actions undermine judicial independence,” which is essential for the discharge of adjudicatory duties.

Regarding the subordinate judiciary, the petitioner judges have raised the issue of failure to exercise effective supervision and control over lower courts.

“The Islamabad district judiciary, staffed largely by deputationists, resembles
the game of musical chairs, with judges on deputation enjoying no security of tenure. Chief Justice Dogar has taken affirmative steps to ensure that the Islamabad district judiciary remains a rag-tag ensemble, the members of which can be shunted back to their parent departments if they fall out of line.”

Then, the exercise of administrative powers by Chief Justice Dogar is also marred by conflict of interest, the judges believe.

As the competent authority under the Protection against Harassment at Workplace Act, 2010, Justice Saman Rafat recently constituted an inquiry committee after receiving complaint by a female lawyer against Justice Dogar.

“Acting in his own cause, the very same day, Chief Justice Dogar recalled the notification appointing Justice Rafat as the competent authority to administer the Protection against Harassment at Workplace Act, 2010, and appointed an additional judge replacing her as the competent authority.”

Moreover, CJ Dogar has “initiated an unfortunate practice of using judicial powers that undermine the independence of the judiciary. In several cases, judicial powers have been exercised not only to transfer pending cases from one judge to another, but also an unprecedented practice of issuing writ of certiorari (i.e. suspending proceedings before the judges of the same court) has also started.”

This is happening when it is settled law that judges cannot issue writs in pending matters to the same court, the judges say.

But, “in Chief Justice Dogar’s time, we are witnessing this practice as a tool, to restrain the petitioner judges from proceeding to hear matters that are fixed for hearing before the court.”

For instance, recently, a division bench comprising CJ Dogar and Justice Azam Khan restrained Justice Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri from carrying out judicial work.

In this case, the exercise of judicial powers in “breach of principles of fair trial and due process” is a “potent example of self-cannibalisation by an institution!”

It is the “latest manifestation of the retribution that some of the petitioner judges have been threatened with, for exercise of judicial authority in a manner in select cases that powerful members of the executive found disagreeable.”

Source: www.dawn.com

September 20, 2025

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar on Friday hinted that some countries were showing interest in building strategic defence agreements with Pakistan, following the country’s landmark pact with Saudi Arabia.

Pakis­tan and Saudi Arabia entered into a landmark mutual defence agreement, under which any aggression against one state will be considered an attack on both. The pact was signed by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman at the Al-Yamamah Palace in Riyadh on Wednesday.

The agreement came amid diplomatic upheaval in the Middle East and just months after a deadly India-Pakistan conflict in May.

“It’s premature to say anything, but some other countries want to enter into an agreement of this nature,” Dar told reporters in London, replying to a question about whether other states will join the pact or ink similar deals. “This was not signed overnight; it has taken several months.”

Calling the agreement a “historic pact”, FM Dar said Pakistan has always maintained an informal defence arrangement with Saudi Arabia, which is the same as the agreement signed on Wednesday.

“I believe that both sides are very happy. Let’s be frank: Saudi Arabia has stood with us during difficult times, such as the sanctions. Their support was very relevant and important,” he added. “Similarly, during the current crisis since 2022-2023, when we needed IMF (International Monetary Fund) support, Saudi Arabia stood with us.”

Meanwhile, Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif told Reuters that nuclear weapons were “not on the radar” of the pact. He said the agreement could be extended to cover other Gulf nations.

“We have no intention of using this pact for any aggression,” said Asif. “But if the parties are threatened, then obviously this arrangement will become operative.”

In contrast, asked a day ago about whether Pakistan’s nuclear assets were also up for use under the agreement, Asif said: “What we have, our capabilities, will absolutely be available under this pact.

PPP Chairman and former foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari also welcomed the development.

He said the way the deal was signed in the context of the recent conflict with India was a “very positive” development for both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and congratulated the prime minister for pulling it off.

Separately, India said it hoped Saudi Arabia would keep in mind mutual interests and sensitivities between it and archival Pakistan.

“India and Saudi Arabia have a wide-ranging strategic partnership which has deepened considerably in the last few years,” Indian foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told reporters during a weekly news briefing.

“We expect that this strategic partnership will keep in mind mutual interests and sensitivities,” he said.

Saudi Arabia is one of the top exporters of petroleum to India and the two countries agreed this year to boost cooperation in supplies of crude and liquefied petroleum gas.

The two nations were also exploring joint projects in refineries and petrochemicals, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said this year.

A day ago, India’s foreign ministry said it was aware that the pact had been under consideration and that it would study the implications for New Delhi.

The neighbours have fought three major wars, along with numerous clashes, including the four-day conflict in May that was their heaviest fighting in decades.

Source: www.dawn.com

September 20, 2025

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Counter Terrorism Department (CTD) gunned down three “terrorists”, including an Afghan national, during an intelligence-based operation (IBO) carried out in Khyber district late on Friday night.

Two among the three militants killed during the IBO, were involved in a suicide bombing in Peshawar which led to the deaths of a sub-inspector and a constable.

A statement issued by the CTD said that the department conducted an IBO based on the reported presence of Fazal Noor, a commander of the banned militant Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) and his group members in Ali Masjid area of the district.

It added that as soon as the SWAT reached the spot, the militants opened fire which was retaliated and the exchange of fire continued for around 30 minutes.

The CTD said a search operation was launched after the firing stopped and the SWAT team found three dead bodies who were later identified as Muhammad Naeem, Muhammad Karim, residents of Karak, and Noor Nabi, a resident of Nangarhar in Afghanistan, affiliated with the ISKP.

It added that Fazal Noor along with other group members escaped during the exchange of fire.

“The militant group had been under continuous technical surveillance, with investigators tracing their movements and confirming their identity through technical footprints,” the statement read, adding that the CTD traced their movement for the execution of a militant activity in the Lala Chena Dosarky Ali Masjid in Khyber district.

The statement said the SWAT team recovered three SMGs, 135 rounds, 12 magazines and three bundle wear, adding that the technical investigation linked the group to at least three militant attacks.

“Preliminary intelligence confirms that two militants who fled away from the scene were identified as a local commander of ISKP namely Fazal Noor and Hakim Nisar operating under foreign-based, foreign-funded handlers with active plans to conduct major terrorist activities in Peshawar and Khyber,” the statement read.

Source: www.dawn.com