The judges are in the dock. Five judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) have moved the Supreme Court praying that several administrative acts of their own court are in contravention of the convention of judicial process and, thus, ultra vires in essence. The salient points in the petitions are startling and go on to confirm the rift within the superior judiciary as well as the obstruction to justice that is unfortunately in vogue at the court of law due to interpretational differences among the Brother Judges. The pleas pertain to composition of benches to rosters and abrupt case transfers. For the first time in history, judges in office have named the IHC, its chief justice, and the Federation of Pakistan as respondents under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, stating that it is tantamount to enforcement of fundamental rights.
The chasm among judges is the talk of the town since many of the same petitioners had written letters to the Chief Justice complaining of “intimidation and harassment”, “disregard to set procedural norms” by their superiors, and shuffling of roster on “vindictive” reasons. The new petitions, personally lodged at the top court, prays to declare that: administrative powers could not be “deployed to undermine or trump the judicial powers” of the high court judges; a chief justice of the high court is “not authorised to constitute benches or transfer cases” once a high court bench has been assigned a case; a chief justice of a high court “cannot exclude available judges from the roster, at will, and use the power to issue a roster to oust judges from performing judicial functions”; and a “high court cannot issue a writ under Article 199 of the Constitution to itself”.
The judicial row has now reached a point where it needs astute constitutional navigation, and it would be prudent of Lords to keep institutional vibrancy and independence in view while deciding over the petitions. It’s a question of dispensing justice to the justices themselves, and it must entail complete submission to the rule of law and high moral standards of the court of law.
