Judges frustrated by their boss seek justice from SC
• Justices Sattar, Kayani, Jahangiri and Ejaz Ishaq file separate pleas in person, represent themselves before apex court
• Allege IHC CJ has transformed his office into ‘monocracy’
• Urge SC to declare court’s practice and procedure rules ‘mala fide and void’
• Say CJ can’t exclude judges from roster at will
ISLAMABAD: Four senior sitting judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday personally approached the Supreme Court to separately challenge the administrative powers being exercised by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar.
“This petition is a desperate measure of last resort,” declared one of the pleas submitted by senior puisne judge, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani.
“As neutral arbiters of the law appointed to dispense justice to citizens, judges are not meant to become litigants in a polity governed by the rule of law,” the petition conceded, but added that these were exceptional times, with a pressing question as to whether governance was by rule of law or by rule of men.
The petitions lamented that the CJ had chosen to assume powers transforming his office into a “monocracy”.
The petitions, with similar arguments, were filed by Justice Kayani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar and Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan. They are among the five judges who had earlier waged a legal battle in the SC against their seniority by challenging the transfer of three judges, including now Chief Justice Dogar, to the IHC. On June 19, the constitutional bench, by a majority of three to two, upheld the transfer of the three judges to the IHC from different high courts, holding it to be within the framework of the Constitution.
It remains unclear whether the fresh petitions, if placed before the constitutional bench, will be argued by the judges themselves, as they were filed in person without engaging any counsel.
The petitions appear to be the culmination of recent developments within the high court.
Speaking informally to the media shortly after filing the plea, Justice Kayani said they had come to the apex court because they had always placed their faith in law, justice and fairness.
Asked how it felt to appear as litigants, Justice Kayani remarked that he felt exactly as any ordinary citizen would.
He responded in the negative when asked whether they were currently sitting on benches constituted by the IHC CJ.
The petitions urged the SC to declare that administrative powers cannot be used to undermine or override the judicial powers of high court judges. They also sought a declaration that the IHC CJ is not authorised to constitute benches or transfer cases once a bench has already been seized of a matter.
Another plea requested the apex court to declare that the IHC CJ cannot exclude available judges from the roster at will or employ the power of issuing the roster to prevent judges from performing judicial functions.
The petitions contended that the constitution of benches, transfer of cases and issuance of rosters must be undertaken strictly in accordance with rules adopted collectively by the high court under Article 202 read with Article 192(1) of the Constitution.
They stressed that the ance with rules adopted collectively by the high court under Article 202 read with Article 192(1) of the Constitution.
They stressed that the doctrine of “Master of the Roster” was definitively set aside in the SC’s 2024 Practice and Procedure judgment. Thus, decisions concerning the formation of benches, transfer of cases or issuance of rosters could not rest solely in the hands of the CJ.
Administrative committees
The judges also urged the SC to set aside the formation of the administrative committees through notifications dated Feb 3 and July 15 along with subsequent actions, for being mala fide, unlawful and coram non judice.
They requested that the adoption and notification of the IHC Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025, allegedly by an illegally constituted administrative committee, without prior approval of the full court, was in breach of Article 192(1) read with Article 202, and its subsequent endorsement in September was therefore illegal and void.
Another plea asked the apex court to direct the IHC to ensure proper supervision and oversight of the district judiciary, as mandated under Article 203 of the Constitution and Section 6 of the IHC Act, 2010.
The petitions argued that the high court cannot issue a writ under Article 199 to itself, and that a division bench has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over interlocutory orders of a single bench, nor to assume control over its proceedings as if it were an inferior court or tribunal.
The judges also contended that the high court can only be restrained from performing judicial duties under Article 209, and that a writ of quo warranto seeking removal of a judge from office was not maintainable under Article 209(7) read with Article 199(1). They said they were raising these issues not to scandalise themselves or the judiciary, but to clarify how they could fulfil their constitutional obligation under Article 5 and remain faithful to their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
Published in Dawn, September 20th, 2025
