Five IHC Judges Move Supreme Court Over Judicial Independence Concerns

Islamabad: The controversy over judicial independence in Pakistan has deepened as five Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges have submitted petitions to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, seeking redress over alleged interference in judicial functions and violations of the Constitution. This move comes just a year after six IHC judges had written to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) in March 2024, raising similar concerns. Justice Muhammad Arbab Tahir, who was previously part of that group, is notably absent from the latest petitions — a shift that may influence the case’s outcome. “Worst Era in Judicial History” – Former Judge Former Lahore High Court judge Shahid Jamil Khan described the development as “the worst era in Pakistan’s judicial history,” lamenting that judges who are constitutionally bound to dispense justice are themselves seeking justice. He stressed that while it was unusual for judges to personally file petitions, it was necessary to “jolt the conscience of the Supreme Court.” Grave Allegations Against Executive and Judiciary Renowned lawyer Saiful Malook said he had reviewed the petitions, describing the allegations as “unprecedented.” The judges’ grievances include: Pressure from executive agencies not to decide cases on merit Breaches of judicial oath Unconstitutional restrictions on judicial independence Malook emphasized that the allegations extended not only to the executive but also to the outgoing chief justice and the Supreme Court itself. “This is a historic moment,” Malook said. “Either the Supreme Court upholds constitutional safeguards or admits openly that the judiciary has become a compromised institution.” Lawyers Call It a “Sad Day” Advocate Chaudhry Faisal Hussain expressed disappointment, stating: “It is painful to see judges of the high court standing in the Supreme Court to seek justice. This is not about individuals but about the judiciary as an institution.” He also criticized the order restraining Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, calling it unconstitutional since only the Supreme Judicial Council has authority over judges of superior courts. Background: Executive vs. Judiciary In 2024, six IHC judges had written to the SJC about agency interference. Then-CJP Qazi Faez Isa convened a full court meeting and later suggested forming an inquiry commission. Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani recused himself from leading the commission, prompting CJP Isa to initiate suo motu proceedings. Multiple high courts admitted in hearings that interference by executive agencies in judicial matters was an “open secret.” Meanwhile, the 26th Constitutional Amendment, passed by the government, has been criticized for tightening executive control over the judiciary. When five judges challenged the transfer of three colleagues to the IHC, the Supreme Court upheld the executive’s plan — raising concerns about judicial independence. Stakes for the Supreme Court Legal experts believe the government now seeks to activate the SJC against Justice Jahangiri. The outcome will depend heavily on: Six SC judges hearing the petitions Three SJC members: CJP Yahya Afridi, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, and Justice Munib Akhtar Three-member committee: Justice Aminuddin Khan, Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, and Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, tasked with petition fixation Observers note that both the five IHC judges and IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar are not in the “good books” of certain influential SC judges. The detailed judgment in the IHC judges’ transfer case, including any minority opinion, is expected to significantly impact this latest round of petitions.