The federal government has formally submitted its response in the Supreme Court regarding the ongoing case concerning the seniority and transfer of judges, particularly those from the Islamabad High Court (IHC). In its reply, the government urged the court to dismiss the petitions challenging the judges’ transfers, asserting that the transfers were conducted in accordance with the Constitution.
The government’s position is that under Article 200 of the Constitution, a judge’s transfer does not constitute a new appointment, meaning a fresh oath is not required after such transfers. This argument aims to counter claims that the transfer of judges was improper or against constitutional procedures.
Further defending the transfers, the federal government rejected the notion that these were “temporary” transfers, clarifying that the Constitution does not categorize such transfers as temporary and that the decisions made were in the interest of judicial transparency and independence. The government emphasized that the transfer process was carried out to uphold these principles and not to undermine the judiciary’s autonomy.
The government’s reply also highlighted that the Judicial Commission had appointed two new judges to the IHC, while leaving three positions vacant. A summary on the transfer of judges to the IHC was sent to the president by the Law Ministry on January 28.
Additionally, the response clarified the role of the president in the transfer process, stating that the president’s role is limited, with the primary authority resting with the Chief Justice of Pakistan, who must act in consultation with the relevant judge and the chief justices of the respective high courts.
