Islamabad (Web Desk): Five sitting judges of the Islamabad High Court, including Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mahmood Jahangiri, Saman Rifat and Ejaz Ishaq Khan, on Friday filed individual petitions before the Supreme Court, challenging the extent of administrative authority exercised within the judiciary.
Through their applications, the judges requested the apex court to rule that administrative powers should not be used in a way that “undermine or trump the judicial powers” entrusted to high court judges.
They further pressed the court to affirm that the chief justice of a high court is “not authorised to constitute benches or transfer cases” once a bench has already been assigned a matter.
The petitions also raised concern over the exclusion of judges from the working roster, asking the court to hold that a chief justice “cannot exclude available judges from the roster, at will, and use the power to issue a roster to oust judges from performing judicial functions.”
It was emphasised that the processes of forming benches, transferring cases and preparing rosters must be exercised strictly in line with the procedure framed collectively by the high court as provided under Article 202, read with Article 192(1) of the Constitution.
The petitioners insisted that such critical powers should not lie exclusively with the chief justice.
Justice Kayani, in particular, requested the annulment of notifications issued on February 3 and July 15, together with the decisions of the administration committees formed under them, stressing that the committees were created in violation of law.
The plea further sought a declaration that the adoption and enforcement of the Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025, carried out by an “illegally constituted administration committee” without the prior approval of the full court, and later endorsed in September, “is in breach of Article 192(1) read with Article 202 of the Constitution, and its subsequent endorsement in September, are illegal and of no legal effect.”