Summary: [Dissenting Note by Shakeel Ahmad, J.—Supplementing Afghan J, (Minority Opinion] Majority Opinion Citation is 2025 SCP 233 ----- (a) Constitution of Pakistan — Arts. 200, 175-A — Transfer of High Court Judges — Scope and Nature of Power — Constitutional Limitations. Held, the President’s power under Article 200 to transfer a High Court Judge is not unfettered; it is conditional upon consent of the judge concerned and meaningful consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the Chief Justices of both High Courts. Such consultation must be effective and informed, not perfunctory or based on incomplete information. The phrase “during the period” in all successive Constitutions (1956, 1962, 1973) denotes a temporary and time-bound transfer, not a permanent one. A permanent transfer would effectively circumvent Article 175-A (procedure for appointments) and undermine judicial independence. (b) Judicial Independence — Purpose of Safeguards — Prohibition on Executive Influence. The Constitution embeds multiple bulwarks to ensure judicial independence under Arts. 2-A, 175, 178, 195 and the Third Schedule. Any Executive power enabling removal or displacement of judges by “permanent transfer” would strike at the core of this independence. Judges are not civil servants; their transfer cannot be equated with administrative posting. High Courts are distinct constitutional entities, each with its own Chief Justice and seniority list; permanent inter-court transfers blur those constitutional boundaries. (c) Meaningful Consultation — Obligation of Disclosure — Violation by Omission. The summary initiating the impugned transfers failed to disclose crucial facts—seniority positions, requirement of fresh oath, and justification of public interest—thereby rendering the consultation process constitutionally defective. Such concealment amounted to mala fide exercise of power and violated the constitutional duty of fairness. Reliance placed on Messrs Airport Support Services v. Airport Manager (1998 SCMR 2268), Ikram Bus Service (PLD 1963 SC 564), and Doody ([1993] 3 All ER 92). (d) Public Interest — Requirement and Limits. Article 200 permits transfer only where public interest so demands, such as balancing judicial strength, national integration, or specialized need. No such public interest was demonstrated in the impugned notification. Transfers initiated for administrative or political reasons are ultra vires. (e) Locus Standi — Public Interest Litigation under Article 184(3). Advocates and Bar Associations possess standing to challenge measures that endanger judicial independence. Rule 165 of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules (1976) obligates lawyers to resist politicization of judicial appointments. Relying on Benazir Bhutto v. Federation (PLD 1988 SC 416), Multilines Associates (PLD 1995 SC 423), and Wukla Mahaz (PLD 1998 SC 1263), the learned Judge reaffirmed that strict standing rules yield to public-interest concerns affecting the independence of the judiciary. (f) Constitutional Interpretation — Historical Evolution of Article 200. A review of Articles 172 (1956), 99 (1962) and 200 (1973) shows continuity of the words “consent and consultation” and “during the period”, evidencing legislative intent for temporary transfers only. The omission of the proviso by the 18th Amendment restored the full force of these safeguards. (g) Alleged Selectivity and Mala Fides. The transfers were completed within five days; the selection of relatively junior judges from Lahore, Sindh and Balochistan High Courts without consideration of seniority, and the absence of disclosure of fresh-oath implications, indicated selective and mala fide conduct. Such actions were inconsistent with transparency and fair-play principles. (h) Role of Armed Forces — Articles 244 & 245 — Non-Interference. The learned Judge noted that intelligence agencies have no constitutional role in judicial appointments or transfers. Members of the Armed Forces are bound by oath under Article 244 to remain apolitical; any interference would be unconstitutional. (i) Religious and Ethical Foundations of Judicial Independence. Verses from Surahs Al-Nisa (4:135 & 4:105), Al-Maida (5:8 & 5:44), and Sad (38:26) emphasize justice without fear or favour. Citing Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, the Judge reminded that “independence of judiciary is neither genuflexion nor opposition but fearless fidelity to law.” (j) Precedents Considered. Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation (PLD 1996 SC 324); Sharaf Faridi v. Federation (PLD 1989 Kar 404); Govt. of Balochistan v. Aziz Ullah Memon (PLD 1993 SC 341); Zafar Ali Shah v. Pervez Musharraf (PLD 2000 SC 869); and Liyanage v. The Queen ([1967] AC 259). (k) Dissenting Conclusion. Held (Dissenting), that permanent transfer of High Court Judges, as effected by Notification No. F.1(2)/2024-A.II dated 1 February 2025, is contrary to Article 200 of the Constitution; the process lacked genuine consultation and public interest justification. Such transfers undermine judicial independence and institutional autonomy. Questions concerning seniority and fresh oath were left open for future determination.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 185(3), 199(1)(b)(ii) & (5), 184(3) & 187—Quo warranto against Judges of Superior Courts—Scope; interim restraint—Maintainability to the extent of seeking information/examination of personal qualification to hold office distinguished from challenge to judicial acts—Held, while a proceeding in the nature of quo warranto may lie to examine a Superior Court Judge’s qualifications, a High Court cannot—in such proceedings under Art. 199—pass an interim order restraining the Judge from performing judicial functions, in view of Art. 199(5) and the settled law in PLD 1998 SC 161—Power to so restrain, if at all, lies only with the Supreme Court in exceptional circumstances in proceedings under Art. 184(3), aided by Art. 187. (b) High Courts—Practice & Procedure ----Interim order restraining a sitting Judge from “holding Court” during pendency of quo warranto petition—Illegality—Order set aside—Respondent No.1 (writ-petitioner) himself did not defend the restraint upon appreciating PLD 1998 SC 161; Attorney-General also supported the settled position—Impugned restraining portion held unsustainable. (c) High Court Office Objections / Registry Process ----Lahore High Court Rules & Orders, Vol. V, Ch. 1-A (as adopted by IHC)—Rules 9 & 9-A—Office objections must be decided first, through a speaking administrative order; only thereafter does the matter mature onto the judicial side—Bench directed that the Division Bench of the IHC shall first decide office objections and then proceed in accordance with law. (d) Administrative law—Reasoned orders ----S. 24-A, General Clauses Act, 1897—All administrative orders must be in writing and supported by reasons—“Verbal” or unreasoned directions lack legal sanctity—Principle reaffirmed. (e) Notice to Law Officers ----Order XXVII-A, C.P.C.—Matters involving interpretation of constitutional provisions—Notice to Attorney-General/Advocate-General—Compliance emphasized. (f) Additional note (concurring) by Shahid Bilal Hassan, J. ----Registry objections: nature and consequence—Proceedings on office objections are administrative; court must record reasons when overruling/sustaining them; ministerial staff cannot determine fate of petitions—Cited case law reiterating (i) written, reasoned administrative orders (S. 24-A GCA), and (ii) that deficient filings be placed before a Judge per Rules 9 & 9-A for appropriate orders (overrule; grant time; or dismiss, as the case may be). While concurring with the result, his Lordship underscores that bypassing the objection mechanism renders such orders legally infirm and the proper course is to restore status quo ante and decide objections first. (Concurring note; not a separate disposition.) Held: (i) High Court’s interim restraint preventing a sitting Judge from performing judicial functions in a quo warranto petition is without lawful authority and is set aside in light of PLD 1998 SC 161 and Art. 199(5); (ii) Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court shall first decide office objections by a speaking order and then proceed in accordance with law. Cited Cases: • Malik Asad Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1998 SC 161 (paras 77, 84) • Zahid Hussain v. The State, 1998 SCMR 611 • CDA v. Shaheen Farooq, 2007 SCMR 1328 • Farman Ali v. Muhammad Ishaq, PLD 2013 SC 392 • Muhammad Boota v. Basharat Ali, PLD 2014 Lahore 1; 2014 CLD 64 (Lahore) • Rana Naveed Ahmad Khan v. Province of Punjab, PLD 2014 Lahore 436 • Pakistan Lawyers Forum v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2005 Lahore 107 • Tahira Naseem v. Arshad Mehmood, 2021 PCr.LJ 682 Disposition: Petition converted into appeal and allowed to the extent indicated—Impugned IHC order set aside insofar as it restrains the petitioner-Judge from holding Court; Division Bench of IHC directed to decide office objections first by a speaking order and thereafter proceed according to law.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 200, 175(2), 175A, 192, 199, 1(2), 2A—Transfer of High Court Judges to Islamabad High Court—Consent and consultations—Scope and validity Transfer of a Judge from a Provincial High Court to the Islamabad High Court under Art.200(1) is constitutionally valid where (i) the Judge consents and (ii) the President consults the Chief Justice of Pakistan and the Chief Justices of both the transferring and receiving High Courts—Art.200 is a self-contained provision; no additional conditions may be read into it—Record reflecting meaningful consultations and consent satisfies constitutional safeguards against arbitrariness—Transfers made in public interest and in conformity with Art.200 do not offend judicial independence protected by Arts. 2A & 175(2)—Court declined to expand Art.200 beyond its text. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 200(1) & (3)—Temporary increase vs. transfer—Distinct schemes—No inherent temporariness in Art.200(1) transfers Art.200(3) expressly provides a temporary attendance mechanism; by contrast, Art.200(1) contains no temporal limitation—Difference in language is deliberate; a transfer under Art.200(1) is not confined to a fixed period—Petitioners’ attempt to import the “temporary” qualifier from Art.200(3) into Art.200(1) rejected. (c) Constitutional structure; federal character of the judiciary ----Arts. 1(2), 175, 192, 199, 25 & 27; Islamabad High Court Act, 2010, S.3; Judicial Commission of Pakistan (Appointment of Judges) Rules, 2024, R.6—Representational diversity and institutional legitimacy Islamabad High Court, as the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory frequently dealing with matters of national import, ought to reflect the federation’s regional and linguistic diversity—Transfers of Judges from Provinces to IHC advance federal inclusion, strengthen public confidence, and enrich deliberation—This aligns with S.3 of the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010 (appointments “from the provinces and other territories of Pakistan”) and JCP Rules, 2024, R.6 (ensuring diversity in gender, region, religion)—Participation of Provincial Chief Justices in the appointment architecture (Art.175A) evidences a constitutional design favouring federal representativeness. (d) Constitutional interpretation—Harmonious reading; functionalism disciplined by text ----Approach and principles Constitution must be read holistically; no provision (absent express command) overrides another—Functionalism, when anchored in text and structure, permits the Constitution to operate as a “living” instrument while preserving judicial discipline—Applied here to reconcile judicial independence (Arts. 2A, 175) with the transfer power (Art.200) and federal representativeness. (e) Judicial review; limits ----Ultra vires control vs. textual clarity Judicial review corrects jurisdictional excess and legal misdirection; however, where constitutional text is clear (Art.200’s consent + consultation scheme), courts may not superadd conditions—Transfers satisfying the constitutional minima and public interest standard withstand review. (f) Oath of office ----Arts. 194, 175A & 200—Whether re-administration of oath is required on transfer A transfer under Art.200 is a lateral reassignment within the same constitutional office; it is not a fresh appointment—The oath under Art.194 attaches to office of High Court Judge, not to a particular territorial seat—No re-oath is constitutionally required upon transfer. (g) Comparative perspective (India) ----Art. 222 (India)—Public-interest constraint; Pakistani scheme stronger on safeguards Indian law permits transfers on consultation with the Chief Justice of India and without the Judge’s consent, subject to public-interest review—Pakistan’s Art.200 regime affords greater safeguards (consent + tripartite consultations); Pakistani transfers promoting national integration and judicial independence are consistent with comparative constitutional practice. (h) Administrative reform—Policy direction (seniority) ----Unified National Seniority List—Transfers to IHC To promote transparency and consistency in federal-forum transfers, a Unified National Seniority List of all High Court Judges be prepared, maintained, and annually notified by the Office of the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan, to operate for transfers to the Islamabad High Court and applied subject to the diversity principle. Cited Cases: • Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana 2015 SCMR 1739 • Hamza Rasheed Khan v. EAT, LHC PLD 2024 SC 1028 • State v. Zia-ur-Rehman PLD 1973 SC 49 • Qazi Hussain Ahmad v. General Pervez Musharraf PLD 2002 SC 853 • Fauji Foundation v. Shamimur Rehman PLD 1983 SC 457 • Shahid Nabi Malik v. Chief Election Commissioner PLD 1997 SC 32 • Registrar, Supreme Court v. Wali Muhammad 1997 SCMR 141 • Al-Raham Travels v. MoRA 2011 SCMR 1621 • Province of Sindh v. MQM PLD 2014 SC 531 • Muhammad Aslam Awan v. Federation 2014 SCMR 1289 • SNGPL v. S.K. (Pvt.) Ltd. 2025 SCMR 570 • Naseem Khan v. Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2024 SCMR 1341 • Sharaf Faridi v. Federation PLD 1994 SC 105 • Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation PLD 1996 SC 324 • Malik Asad Ali v. Federation PLD 1998 SC 161 • (India) Supreme Court AOR Assoc. v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441; Madras Bar Assoc. v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1571 Disposition: (i) Transfers of Judges from Provincial High Courts to the Islamabad High Court under Art.200 held constitutionally valid where consent and consultations are fulfilled and public interest is served. (ii) Such transfers reinforce the federal character of the judiciary by ensuring regional/linguistic diversity; consistent with the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010 and JCP Rules, 2024. (iii) Transfer under Art.200 is not a fresh appointment; no re-oath under Art.194 required. (iv) Policy direction: Unified National Seniority List to guide transfers to IHC, applied with a diversity principle.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 175A & 200---- Scope and validity of transfer of High Court Judges—Distinction between appointment and transfer—Interpretation of constitutional provisions. The Court (majority 3–2) held that Article 200 is a self-contained and independent constitutional provision enabling the President to transfer a Judge of one High Court to another, either permanently or temporarily, subject to the Judge’s consent and consultation with the Chief Justice of Pakistan and both Chief Justices concerned. Such transfer does not constitute a “fresh appointment” under Article 175A, nor does it attract the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s jurisdiction. The framers intentionally retained Article 200 after the Eighteenth Amendment; to treat every transfer as a new appointment would render Article 200 redundant and defeat its object. Harmonious and purposive interpretation requires both provisions to operate in separate spheres—Article 175A governing appointments, and Article 200 governing transfers of serving Judges. const.p._22_2025_25092025 (1) (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 200—Consent and consultation—Meaning and scope. The power of transfer is fenced with safeguards of consent and consultation. These must be real, substantive, and purposive, not formalities. Record showed that each transferee Judge voluntarily consented, and the Chief Justice of Pakistan and Chief Justices of donor and recipient High Courts were duly consulted. No evidence of coercion or mala fide was established. The constitutional requirements were thus satisfied in letter and spirit. (c) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 200; High Court Judges (Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order 1997, Art. 25—Permanent vs. temporary transfer. Article 200 does not fix any duration; transfers may be temporary or permanent, depending on exigency and specification in the notification. Allowances and privileges mentioned in sub-article (2) apply only to temporary transfers. Permanent transfers create a vacancy in the parent High Court, which the Judicial Commission may subsequently fill. The President must, however, clearly specify the nature of transfer in each notification to avoid ambiguity regarding tenure and seniority. (d) Islamabad High Court Act 2010 (Act XVII of 2010) ----S. 3—Composition and diversity—Whether violated by transfers. Section 3, prescribing representation of all provinces in the Islamabad High Court, does not forbid filling vacancies through transfer. The inclusion of Judges from Punjab, Sindh, and Balochistan in the impugned notification ensured inter-provincial diversity and did not offend the statute. (e) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 175(3), 200 & Preamble—Judicial independence and public interest. Transfers effected under Article 200, with consent and consultation, do not undermine judicial independence. Allegations of executive interference, ulterior motive, or “court-packing” remained unsubstantiated. Independence of the judiciary is safeguarded by the constitutional checks built into Article 200 itself. The “letter of six Judges” complaining of interference, while significant, could not by itself invalidate a constitutionally compliant transfer order. (f) Disposition By a majority of 3 to 2, the constitutional petitions were disposed of. The impugned Notification No. F.10 (2)/2024-A.II dated 1 February 2025 was not struck down. The matter was remanded to the President of Pakistan to determine the nature (permanent / temporary) and seniority of the transferee Judges. Pending such determination, Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar was to continue as Acting Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court. The minority (Naeem Akhter Afghan & Shakeel Ahmad, JJ.) allowed the petitions and declared the Notification unconstitutional. (h) Cited Cases Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 324) President’s Reference No. 2 of 1996 (PLD 1997 SC 84) Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 161) Sharaf Faridi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1989 SC 404) Muhammad Aslam Awan v. Federation of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 1289) Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808) Hamza Rasheed Khan v. Election Appellate Tribunal, Lahore (PLD 2024 SC 1028) Reference No. 1 of 2020 (PLD 2021 SC 825)

Summary: Majority Opinion ----- (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 200(1) & 175A – Transfer vs. Appointment of Judges – Scope and Constitutional Framework Transfer of judges from one High Court to another under Art. 200(1) is a distinct and independent constitutional power vested in the President of Pakistan, separate from the appointment of judges under Art. 175A through the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP)—Held, the two provisions deal with different constitutional functions and do not overlap—Transfer of a judge under Art. 200 does not amount to a fresh appointment and can be exercised within the sanctioned strength of the receiving High Court—Such transfers cannot be questioned on the basis that vacancies should have been filled by the JCP—Constitutional framers intentionally provided for both mechanisms, and the independence of Art. 200 is not contingent upon Art. 175A. (b) Constitution of Pakistan – Art. 200(1) – Procedure for Transfer of High Court Judges – Judicial Safeguards and Executive Role Powers under Art. 200(1) are not unfettered—Transfer must be made with the consent of the judge concerned and after mandatory consultation with the Chief Justices of both High Courts and the Chief Justice of Pakistan—Held, such procedure ensures that the judiciary retains primacy in decision-making—Consent and meaningful consultation are sine qua non for lawful exercise of power by the President—Executive discretion is thereby subject to structured judicial process, preserving the independence of the judiciary. (c) Constitution of Pakistan – Art. 200(1) & Islamabad High Court Act, 2010, S.3 – Applicability to Islamabad High Court – Legislative Interpretation Section 3 of the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010, relates to appointment of judges and does not restrict the application of Art. 200—Held, transfer of judges to the Islamabad High Court is constitutionally permissible and not barred by the statute—Statutory provisions cannot override or curtail express constitutional powers—Interpretation excluding Islamabad High Court from Art. 200 would be repugnant to the constitutional text and intent. (d) Constitution of Pakistan – Art. 200 – Seniority of Transferee Judges – Nature of Transfer (Permanent or Temporary) Seniority disputes arising from inter-High Court transfers are distinguishable from inter se seniority within a single High Court—Held, absence of an All-Pakistan Cadre or unified seniority list creates ambiguity—Court partially remanded the matter to the President of Pakistan to determine the seniority and nature of the transfer (permanent or temporary) after reviewing the transferee judges’ service records—Transfer Notification itself upheld and not declared ultra vires. (e) Constitution of Pakistan – Art. 184(3) – Maintainability and Disposition Petitions under Art. 184(3) were maintainable on account of important constitutional questions concerning the independence of the judiciary, scope of executive authority, and inter-institutional balance—Held by majority (3–2) that impugned Notification No. F.10(2)/2024-A.II dated 1st February 2025 was constitutionally valid—However, matter regarding seniority and nature of transfer remanded to the President—Minority view (Justice Naeem Akhter Afghan and Justice Shakeel Ahmad) allowed the petitions and set aside the impugned Notification. Disposition: By 3–2 majority, constitutional petitions were partially allowed—Notification of transfer was upheld, while issue of seniority and permanence of transferred judges was remanded to the President of Pakistan for determination—Acting Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court to continue in office until final decision. Cited Constitutional Provisions: • Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Articles 200, 175A, 184(3) • Islamabad High Court Act, 2010 – Section 3

Summary: Minority Opinion ---- (f) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 200(1) & (2), 175A – Transfer of Judges – Permanent vs. Temporary Transfer – Constitutional Limits Minority view—Held, Article 200 of the Constitution does not envisage permanent transfer of High Court judges—Clause (2) is subservient and complementary to Clause (1), and both must be read harmoniously—Permanent transfer bypasses the appointment process under Article 175A and renders it ineffective—Doctrine of Harmonious Construction requires both clauses to operate without conflict or absurdity—The President’s discretion under Article 200 must be exercised temporarily and in accordance with both judicial safeguards and constitutional intent—Impugned notification of 1st February 2025 declared null and void. (g) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 2A, 4, 25 & 175A – Independence of Judiciary – Mala Fide Exercise of Discretion – Lack of Due Process Held, the process leading to the transfer of three judges to the Islamabad High Court suffered from lack of transparency, concealment of material facts, and absence of meaningful consultation with relevant Chief Justices and the Chief Justice of Pakistan—Exercise of discretion by the President was mala fide in law and facts, made in undue haste, and not in public interest—Transfer violated the principles of independence of judiciary, equality before law, and due process enshrined under Articles 2A, 4, and 25 of the Constitution. (h) Judicial Commission of Pakistan (Appointment of Judges) Rules, 2024 – Rule 6 – Diversity and Fresh Appointment through JCP Rule 6 of the JCP Rules mandates regional, gender, and religious diversity in appointments—Held, instead of transferring judges, the President ought to have allowed fresh appointments through the JCP to uphold provincial representation in the Islamabad High Court—Permanent transfer circumvented this framework and violated the intended balance of diversity. (i) Intelligence Agencies – Role in Judicial Appointments and Transfers – Constitutional Boundaries Allegations of involvement by intelligence agencies in influencing judicial transfers—Held, such allegations, even if accepted hypothetically, are unconstitutional, as intelligence agencies have no role in the transfer or appointment of judges—Being subordinate to the executive, agencies like ISI cannot interfere with or override constitutional bodies or office holders—Such interference, if true, would be a grave violation of the independence of judiciary and constitutional scheme. (j) Constitutional Adjudication – Principle of Judicial Restraint – Avoidance of Larger Constitutional Questions Held, where a case can be decided on narrower grounds (i.e., unauthorized permanent transfer), it is unnecessary to address broader constitutional questions like oath-taking or inter-se seniority—Court abstained from deciding those issues, reserving them for appropriate future adjudication. Disposition (Minority View): All Constitution Petitions were accepted—Impugned Notification No. F.10(2)/2024-A.II dated 01.02.2025 was declared null, void and of no legal effect—Permanent transfer held unconstitutional and in contravention of Articles 200 and 175A. Cited Constitutional Provisions and Sources: • Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Articles 2A, 4, 25, 200, 175A • Judicial Commission of Pakistan (Appointment of Judges) Rules, 2024 – Rule 6 • Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739) • A.K. Brohi, Fundamental Law of Pakistan • Cooley, Treatise on Constitutional Limitations • Seervai, Constitutional Law of India • Justice Fazal Karim, Judicial Review of Public Actions

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Art. 184(3) – Transfer of judges – Challenge to notification Original jurisdiction – Transfer of judges – Constitution Petitions filed under Art. 184(3) challenging Notification No. F.10(2)/2024-A.II dated 01.02.2025 whereby three Judges were transferred to the Islamabad High Court – Petitioners included bar associations and individuals – Held, matter involves questions of public importance with reference to enforcement of fundamental rights, particularly transparency in judicial appointments and inter-court transfers – Notices issued to all respondents; Attorney General appeared representing Federation and President of Pakistan – Further record directed to be submitted. Cited provisions: Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 184(3), 200 (b) Judicial Commission of Pakistan – Rules 9 & 10 – Notice and agenda of meeting Judicial appointments – Procedure for convening meeting of Judicial Commission – As per Rules 9 and 10 of JCP Rules, 2024, a minimum 15-day notice required for scheduling meeting and sharing agenda with members – Held, Attorney General’s statement confirmed that no JCP meeting had been scheduled for appointment/confirmation of Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court; next JCP meeting set for 2nd May, 2025 related to other High Courts – Statement taken on record. Cited rules: Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2024, Rr. 9 & 10 (c) Constitution Petition – Withdrawal – Doctrine of dominus litis Withdrawal of petition – Islamabad High Court Bar Association moved application CMA No.2168/2025 for withdrawal of C.P. No.23/2025 – Application filed by current President pursuant to resolution of Managing Committee dated 15.04.2025 – Held, current petitioner is dominus litis; withdrawal permitted and petition dismissed as withdrawn along with pending stay application. Cited principles: Doctrine of dominus litis (d) Judicial independence – Role of bar associations and state organs – Fairness in transfer of judges Judicial independence – Constitutional oversight of inter-court transfers – Petitioners raised concerns regarding transparency and legality of transfers – Held, issue touches upon independence of judiciary and the role of bar associations as constitutional stakeholders – Court to examine record including law ministry summary, Prime Minister’s advice, and President’s notification – Directions issued for submission of relevant documents and seniority lists from High Courts. Cited provisions: Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 200 Disposition: C.P. No. 23/2025 dismissed as withdrawn – Connected petitions adjourned to 22.04.2025 – Respondents and Registrars directed to file concise statements and seniority lists.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 184(3)---Constitutional petitions---Challenge to transfer of judges---Maintainability---Scope of judicial review--- Multiple constitutional petitions were filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenging Notification No.F.10(2)/2024-A.II dated 01.02.2025, whereby three Judges were transferred to the Islamabad High Court---Petitioners included bar associations, former office bearers, and individuals---Court issued notices to respondents including the President, Federation, Provincial Advocates General, and Registrars of various High Courts---Held, matter raises significant constitutional questions and was adjourned for further proceedings after initial directions and clarification regarding pending JCP meetings were recorded. (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 200---Transfer of Judges---Withdrawal of petition---Authority of bar association to withdraw constitutional petition---Doctrine of dominus litis--- Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA), through its newly elected Managing Committee, sought withdrawal of its constitutional petition (C.P. No. 23/2025) via resolution dated 15.04.2025---Court noted that while the original petition was filed by the previous Managing Committee, the new committee, being dominus litis, was competent to withdraw it---Held, petition stood dismissed as withdrawn along with connected application for interim relief. Disposition: C.P. No. 23/2025 dismissed as withdrawn. (c) Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2024 ----Rr. 9 & 10---Scheduling of meetings---Fifteen days’ notice---Court query regarding JCP deliberations--- Court inquired whether any meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) was scheduled for the appointment or confirmation of Chief Justice Islamabad High Court---Learned Attorney General submitted that no such meeting had been scheduled and that the upcoming JCP meeting fixed for 02.05.2025 pertained only to the Peshawar and Balochistan High Courts---This statement was recorded by the Court---Held, any meeting of the JCP is to be convened in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rules 9 and 10 of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2024. (d) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 175-A---Representation of JCP in judicial proceedings---Clarification regarding absence of authorisation--- Court queried the Attorney General whether he was appearing on behalf of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP)---Learned Attorney General clarified that he had not received any such instructions and was only appearing for the Federation and the President---Held, statement recorded; any representation of the JCP must be based on prior authorisation. **(e) Constitutional Procedure---Record of executive action---Call for production of summary and supporting material--- Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the concise statement filed by the Federation lacked the underlying record including the summary moved by the Ministry of Law and Justice for transfer of judges---Learned Attorney General undertook to submit the complete record before the next hearing---Held, such record shall include the summary to the Prime Minister and advice to the President in terms of Article 200 of the Constitution. Disposition: Constitution Petition No. 23/2025 dismissed as withdrawn. Remaining petitions adjourned to 22.04.2025 for further proceedings. Respondents including Advocates General and Registrars directed to file concise statements and seniority lists of Judges.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 184(3), 200 & 194---- Transfer of High Court Judges to Islamabad High Court—Notification by President—Scope of discretionary powers under Art. 200—Requirement of justiciable reasons—Effect of transfer on seniority—Maintainability under Art. 184(3)— Constitution Petitions filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution challenged Notification No. F.10(2)/2024-A.II dated 01.02.2025, whereby the President of Pakistan, exercising powers under Article 200, transferred sitting Judges to the Islamabad High Court—Petitioners contended that although transfer of Judges between High Courts is permitted under Art. 200, the discretionary power must be exercised in a transparent, reasonable and judicious manner—It was alleged that no cogent reasons were provided for the transfers, rendering the notification arbitrary and constitutionally infirm—Further asserted that transferred Judges had not taken a fresh oath under Art. 194, thus rendering the continuation of office legally questionable—Petitioners also challenged administrative rejection of their seniority representations by the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court without proper application of mind, seeking restoration of their original seniority—Held, points raised regarding legality of notification, seniority implications, and compliance with constitutional requirements merit consideration—Notice issued to all respondents and constitutional law officers under Order XXVII-A, Rule 1 of the CPC. Cited Provisions: • Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 184(3), 200, 194 • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O. XXVII-A, R. 1 (b) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 200---- Transfer of High Court Judges—Seniority disputes—Requirement to specify period of transfer—Effect of transfer on existing judicial hierarchy— It was argued that any transfer order under Art. 200 must not be indefinite and should clearly state the period of transfer—Transferred Judges should be placed at the bottom of the seniority list in the transferee High Court to prevent disruption in the existing judicial hierarchy—Upon return to their original High Court, their pre-transfer seniority must be restored—Held, constitutional implications of indefinite transfers and seniority realignment require judicial scrutiny—Notice issued to address these points. (c) Constitutional Petition—Maintainability— ----Scope of Art. 184(3)—Preliminary objections by office—Effect— Office of the Court raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petitions under Art. 184(3)—Held, said objections to be examined on the next date of hearing after service of notice to all respondents and relevant law officers. ----- Disposition: Notice issued in all Constitution Petitions and connected CMAs, including stay applications—Matter adjourned for hearing on 17.04.2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 203— Superintendence and control of subordinate courts—Scope of administrative powers of Chief Justice of High Court—Petitions filed by the State challenging the order of the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court refusing to transfer Anti-Terrorism Court cases—Held, that the Chief Justice of a High Court, under Art. 203, is entrusted with constitutional authority to supervise all subordinate courts, including Anti-Terrorism Courts—In doing so, the Chief Justice is empowered, and indeed obligated, to act as guardian of judicial independence and insulate subordinate courts from undue executive influence—Any action taken within such constitutional mandate, unless shown to be patently arbitrary or unreasonable, cannot be interfered with by the Supreme Court— Cited Case: • Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1445 **(b) Judicial Administration— ----Transfer of cases— Scope and discretion—Findings of Administrative and Chief Justices—Reference against Presiding Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court was considered and dismissed by the Administrative Judge—Subsequent transfer application based solely on the filing of that reference, lacking any convincing material, was rightly rejected by the Chief Justice of the High Court—Held, where a reference has been duly considered and dismissed, the mere existence of that reference cannot justify transfer of cases—Judicial officers cannot be penalized without adequate cause or proof. (c) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 203— Judicial independence—Protection of Presiding Judges—Held, that the Chief Justice, as the patris familias of the provincial judiciary, must ensure protection of Presiding Judges from external pressures—The High Court's administrative discretion in declining unwarranted transfers reinforces constitutional values of independence and fairness in judicial proceedings. **(d) Judicial Propriety— ----Adverse and favorable remarks— Judicial commentary on professional conduct—Findings recorded in paras. 8 and 9 of the impugned orders commented on conduct of both judicial officers and State functionaries—Held, such remarks, though serious in tone, are not to be treated as conclusive, binding, or determinative in any subsequent forum—Future scrutiny or evaluation must be carried out independently and strictly in accordance with law—Commendation does not shield judicial officers from scrutiny; criticism does not prejudice executive functionaries. **(e) Constitutional Law— ----Separation of powers—Scope of judicial review over administrative acts of Chief Justice—Held, administrative decisions of a Chief Justice regarding internal judicial affairs are not ordinarily subject to interference unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of constitutional or legal mandates—No such infirmity was found in the present matter. Disposition: Petitions disposed of—Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court acted within his constitutional mandate under Art. 203—Findings in paras. 8 and 9 of the impugned orders clarified as non-binding and non-prejudicial in future proceedings—Transfer requests by the State found meritless and correctly denied—Administrative action not interfered with.