Serious Questions Raised Over Judges’ Transfers During Hearing in Supreme Court
Islamabad:During the ongoing hearing of the judges’ transfer case, the Supreme Court raised serious questions about the transfer of judges in the Islamabad High Court.
According to **Express News**, a five-member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, headed by **Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar**, heard the case regarding the transfer of judges, where **Advocate Hamid Khan** highlighted several issues regarding the process of judges’ transfers from high courts. He argued that there should be a thorough review of various aspects of judges’ transfers, particularly in the case of Islamabad High Court, where the transfers appeared to have been made hastily.
### Key Remarks from the Judges:
* **Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar** remarked that in India, judges’ transfers are made without seeking the judges’ consent, with decisions being made through the consultation of the Chief Justice. He pointed out that in Pakistan, obtaining a judge’s consent for a transfer is an **constitutional requirement**.
* **Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan** noted that in India, high court judges work under a **unified cadre system**, whereas in Pakistan, there is no such unified seniority system for high court judges.
* **Justice Shakeel Ahmed** observed that in India, high court judges follow a unified seniority list, unlike in Pakistan.
### Arguments by Advocate Hamid Khan:
* Advocate **Hamid Khan** argued that the process of judges’ transfers lacked meaningful consultation, particularly with the **Chief Justice of Pakistan**. In response, **Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan** clarified that the issue wasn’t about consultation but about seeking the **judges’ consent** for the transfer.
* Hamid Khan further claimed that the real purpose of the transfers was to bring **Justice Sarfraz Dogar** into the Islamabad High Court, while the transfers of the other two judges seemed to be a mere formality or for show. He alleged that **Article 200** was misused for political purposes and to exercise power incorrectly.
### Additional Comments by PTI’s Counsel:
**Advocate Idrees Ashraf**, representing the founder of **PTI (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf)**, raised concerns that the **notification** regarding the judges’ transfers did not mention the duration of the transfer. He stated that transferring judges to a court should not lead to discrimination among the judges already serving there, and all judges should be treated equally.
### Further Questions:
Justice **Mohammad Ali Mazhar** asked whether **Article 25** (which ensures equality before the law) should be considered when it comes to judges’ transfers. He also asked whether the situation would have been acceptable if the transfer had been limited to just two years, noting that the central issue seemed to be the **seniority** of judges.
### Next Hearing:
The hearing has been adjourned until **9:30 AM** the following day, when the **PTI’s counsel** will continue presenting their arguments.
