Justice Babar Sattar of the Islamabad High Court has voiced significant objections regarding recent amendments to the Islamabad High Court Rules 2025.
In a letter addressed to Acting Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar and all his fellow judges on the high court, Justice Sattar challenged the legitimacy and process of changes made without the convocation of a full court meeting.
In his correspondence, Justice Sattar asserted that these amendments constitute a violation of both constitutional provisions and established legal protocols, as they were enacted without proper authorization and due process. He specifically highlighted that these alterations contravene Article 208 of the Constitution and the Lahore High Court Rules, which the Islamabad High Court had previously adopted as its guiding framework.
Justice Sattar underscored that, under Article 192, the authority to formulate rules rests exclusively with the Chief Justice and judges of the High Court. He firmly maintained that this power is non-delegable to any other entity nor can it be exercised through alternative means. He explicitly stated, “There is a well-settled principle that discretionary powers granted under a law cannot be transferred to anyone else without amending the law itself.”
Furthermore, he noted that he had received the gazette notification for the Islamabad High Court Rules 2025 but could not recall any full court meeting where the preceding 2011 Rules were either repealed or even deliberated upon. This omission, he argued, renders the new rules legally invalid.
Justice Sattar warned that the rules introduced in 2025 were formulated without proper legal authority and are in direct violation of Article 208. He urged immediate corrective action, emphasizing that such procedural irregularities could negatively impact the rights of court employees and cause institutional embarrassment for the High Court.
He concluded his letter by advocating for a prompt resolution of the issue to avert further legal complications and to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.
