Islamabad, June 19, 2025: The Supreme Court of Pakistan on Thursday dismissed multiple petitions challenging the transfer of three high court judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), ruling that the move was constitutional and in line with Article 200 of the Constitution. The apex court also allowed Justice Sarfraz Dogar to continue serving as the acting Chief Justice of the IHC.
The verdict was delivered by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, who headed the five-member constitutional bench. The bench also included Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan, Shahid Bilal Hassan, Salahuddin Panhwar, and Shakeel Ahmed. In a 3-2 majority ruling, the court upheld the legality of the judges’ transfers.
The petitions, filed under Article 184(3), were brought forward by five IHC judges — Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiyani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Justice Saman Riffat Imtiaz — as well as the Karachi Bar Association (KBA), the IHC Bar Association, and other legal bodies. The petitions had challenged the transfer of Justice 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 petitioners contended that the President did not possess unchecked authority under Article 200(1) to transfer judges between high courts without demonstrable public interest and due regard for judicial independence. They further requested the court to determine that the inter-se seniority of the transferred judges should start from the date of their oath-taking at the IHC, making them junior to existing IHC judges.
In its five-page short order, the Supreme Court clarified that Article 200 and Article 175A serve distinct constitutional purposes — the former relating to judicial transfers and the latter to judicial appointments — and that the presidential power of transfer does not amount to a new appointment.
“The transfer of a judge by the president of Pakistan under Article 200 (whether permanent or temporary) cannot be construed as a fresh appointment,” the judgment stated, affirming that Section 3 of the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010, which defines the IHC’s composition, does not restrict transfers nor override constitutional provisions.
The court emphasized that the President’s authority to transfer judges under Article 200 is exercised in consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) and does not undermine judicial independence.
On the matter of seniority disputes, the judgment acknowledged the complexity created by transfers from different high courts. The court ruled that these disputes do not fall within the administrative jurisdiction of the IHC’s Chief Justice alone, since they concern judges transferred from outside jurisdictions.
Accordingly, the court partially remanded the matter to the President of Pakistan to determine the nature of the transfers (whether permanent or temporary) and establish the seniority of the transferred judges after reviewing their service records.
Until that process is complete, Justice Sarfraz Dogar will continue to function as the acting Chief Justice of the IHC, the court ruled.
Justices Afghan and Ahmed dissented, finding merit in the petitions and voting to set aside the transfer notifications.
This landmark ruling upholds the constitutional framework for judicial transfers while leaving open the administrative question of seniority, which could have long-term implications for judicial hierarchy and governance within the high courts.
