In the petitions, which Dawn.com has obtained, the Islamabad High Court (IHC), its chief justice, and the Federation of Pakistan are named as respondents.
In their submissions, the judges petitioned the Supreme Court to declare that administrative powers cannot be “used to undermine or override the judicial powers” of high court judges. They further requested the apex court to rule that a high court’s chief justice is “not authorized to constitute benches or transfer cases” once a high court bench has already been assigned a case.
Furthermore, the petitions requested a declaration that a high court’s chief justice “cannot arbitrarily exclude available judges from the roster” and use the power to issue a roster to prevent judges from performing their judicial duties. The Supreme Court was also urged to declare “that the constitution of benches, transfer of cases, and issuance of the roster can only be done in accordance with the rules adopted by the entire High Court under Article 202 (rules of procedure), read with Article 192(1) (constitution of high court) of the Constitution.”
The petitioners also asked the apex court to declare that “decision-making” regarding the constitution of benches, issuance of the roster, and transfer of cases cannot “solely rest in the hands of the chief justice.” The petitions stated, “Declare that the ‘Doctrine of the Master of the Roster’ has been definitively set aside in Supreme Court decisions.”
The petitions also sought a declaration that the formation of IHC’s administration committees through notifications dated February 3 and July 15 and all actions taken by them “are tainted with bad faith in law and are illegal.” They asked the court to quash these notifications and all actions taken by the administration committees constituted under them for “being illegal and lacking jurisdiction.”
Additionally, they stated: “Declare that the adoption and approval of the Islamabad High Court Practice and Procedure Rules, 2025, by the illegally constituted administration committee, and its notification without the prior approval of the high court is a breach of Article 192(1) and Article 202 of the Constitution, and its subsequent endorsement in September, are illegal and of no legal effect.”
The judges further requested in their prayers that the Supreme Court “direct the IHC to provide effective supervision and oversight” over the functioning of the district judiciary, as mandated by Article 203 of the Constitution, which states that each high court shall supervise and control all courts subordinate to it.
The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to “declare that a high court cannot issue a writ to itself under Article 199 of the Constitution,” which pertains to the high court’s jurisdiction.
They continued: “A Division Bench of a high court is neither vested with the jurisdiction to hear appeals against interlocutory orders of a single bench nor can it assume control over the proceedings of a single bench as if it were an inferior court or tribunal.”
An interlocutory order refers to a temporary judgment issued during an ongoing case. The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to declare that a high court judge can only be “prevented from performing judicial duties under Article 209 and that a writ of quo warranto seeking the removal of a judge from office is not legally maintainable.”
Article 209 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Judicial Council to conduct inquiries into the capacity and conduct of Supreme Court and high court judges.
The petitioners concluded their statement by asking the Supreme Court to “grant any other relief deemed appropriate given the circumstances of this case.”
