The ongoing unrest within the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has emerged as a significant concern, not only for the judiciary but also for public confidence in the justice system. The recent petition filed by five senior judges of the IHC, challenging the court’s seniority list and the controversial appointment of its acting chief justice, has now been scheduled for hearing before the Constitutional Bench — a move that could prove critical in addressing the simmering discontent.
The immediate cause of the current judicial friction lies in the manner in which cases are being reassigned between benches. Several judges have voiced concern over the acting chief justice’s interventions, particularly in the transfer of sensitive cases without clear legal justification. In one notable instance last month, a judge who had earlier recused themselves from a case found the same matter reassigned to them, raising questions about administrative overreach. A similar incident occurred this week when a division bench was unexpectedly assigned three blasphemy cases previously deliberated upon by another bench. A judge remarked that reassigning a case already examined in detail by a single bench, and without explanation, was inappropriate — a sentiment echoed by the legal counsel present.
These developments come in the wake of a broader controversy: the transfer of three judges from other high courts to the IHC under suspicious circumstances. One of these judges was later appointed as the acting chief justice, bypassing several longstanding IHC judges. This not only upset the seniority structure but also raised serious questions about judicial transparency and fairness. The decision to elevate a relatively new transferee over experienced judges is seen by many as an attempt to disrupt the internal cohesion of the court.
Adding to this critique, the Karachi Bar Association has also challenged the rationale behind these transfers and appointments. Their petition suggests that these decisions were politically motivated, aimed at sidelining certain judges and compromising the independence of the judiciary.
As the Constitutional Bench prepares to hear these deeply consequential arguments, it is imperative that the matter is resolved swiftly, fairly, and in accordance with the law. The integrity of the judiciary must be preserved at all costs. When internal discord is allowed to fester, it not only hampers the effective functioning of the courts but also erodes public trust in the judicial process. There must be justice within the judiciary itself. Only by upholding transparency, impartiality, and respect for established legal procedures can the judiciary maintain its role as a guardian of the Constitution and a protector of the people’s rights
