Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi has formally opposed a proposal to transfer five judges from the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to various other high courts. The Chief Justice cautioned that such a move could undermine judicial independence and establish an undesirable precedent for the judiciary.
The Dispute Over Judicial Transfers
The controversy began with a proposal by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar, who requested a meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) to discuss the transfers. While CJP Afridi declined to convene the meeting himself, the JCP secretary has summoned a session for April 28 following a requisition by five commission members.
The proposed transfers include Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiani to the Lahore High Court (LHC) and Justice Babar Sattar to the Peshawar High Court (PHC). Justice Arbab M Tahir is proposed for the Balochistan High Court (BHC), while Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz and Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro are slated for the Sindh High Court (SHC).
Concerns Over “Punitive” Actions
CJP Afridi argued that the request lacks articulated reasons or institutional necessity. He stated that without such justification, the transfers assume a “penal character,” effectively acting as a de facto removal of judges from office.
The Chief Justice emphasized that the Constitution provides a specific mechanism for judicial accountability under Article 209 through the Supreme Judicial Council. He warned that using administrative transfers as punishment would conflict with the exclusive constitutional mandate governing judicial accountability.
Further concerns were raised regarding the composition of the court. Afridi noted that transferring five out of nine IHC judges without reciprocal transfers would create vacancies and uncertainty, while moving Justice Soomro and Justice Imtiaz would leave Sindh without representation on the IHC bench, contrary to the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010.
Political and Legal Friction
The situation is complicated by the “famous letter” written to the Supreme Judicial Council regarding alleged agency interference in judicial functions. Three of the proposed transfers—Justices Kiani, Sattar, and Imtiaz—were signatories to that letter.
Legal professionals have noted that judges associated with the letter have reportedly faced pressure since the tenure of former CJP Qazi Faez Isa. Some lawyers have questioned why Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq, similarly a signatory who has been at odds with the executive, was not included in the transfer proposal.
While Senator Ali Zafar has stated he will support CJP Afridi’s stance at the upcoming JCP meeting, other critics argue that Afridi’s own past actions contradict his current position. These critics point to his previous support for the transfer of Justice Dogar from the LHC and his vote to elevate Justice Aamer Farooq to the Supreme Court.
Possible Outcomes
JCP members are reportedly divided, making it unlikely that all five transfers will be approved. Some members suggest that only three judges may be transferred, as there is strong opposition from the government and legal fraternity regarding the moves of Justice Soomro and Justice Tahir.
The final decision may depend heavily on the opinions of bar representatives during the April 28 meeting. The outcome could either reinforce the current protections of judicial tenure or normalize the use of transfers as an administrative tool for reorganization.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who proposed the transfer of the IHC judges?
The transfers were proposed by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar.
Why does CJP Yahya Afridi oppose these transfers?
CJP Afridi believes the transfers lack institutional necessity and are punitive in nature, which he argues undermines judicial independence and bypasses the constitutional removal process outlined in Article 209.
Which judges are being proposed for transfer?
The proposed transfers include Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiani, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Arbab M Tahir, Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, and Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro.
Do you believe administrative transfers should be allowed without a stated institutional necessity?
