Judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) have written to Chief Justice of Pakistan Qazi Faez Isa, urging that the appointment of the IHC’s Chief Justice be made from among the court’s three senior-most judges. The letter, also addressed to the Chief Justices of the Lahore High Court and Sindh High Court, emphasizes the need for transparency and adherence to seniority principles in judicial appointments.
In the letter, Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and other judges have stressed that instead of bringing in a judge from another high court, the Chief Justice of the IHC should be selected from its own senior judges. The judges have further stated that meaningful consultation and clear justifications must be provided if a judge from another high court is to be considered for the position.
The letter highlights concerns over the backlog of over 200,000 pending cases in the Lahore High Court, questioning how the seniority of the Islamabad High Court could be compromised. It also expresses apprehension over media reports suggesting the transfer of a judge from the Lahore High Court to the IHC, potentially for appointment as Chief Justice.
According to the letter, bar associations have also raised objections to the proposed transfer of a judge from the Lahore High Court, who is reportedly being considered for the role of IHC Chief Justice. Similarly, a proposal to transfer a judge from the Sindh High Court to the IHC is also under consideration.
The judges have pointed out that the transfer of judges between high courts is governed by Article 200 of the Constitution. Sources indicate that a copy of the letter has also been sent to the President of Pakistan.
This move is seen as a significant step toward maintaining transparency and upholding the principles of seniority within the judicial system. The judges’ demand sends a clear message to the judicial administration that appointments must be made in accordance with legal requirements and transparent processes.
The development underscores the ongoing debate over judicial appointments and the need to ensure that such decisions are made in the best interest of the judiciary and the public it serves.
