November 24, 2025
By Rana Malhi
ISLAMABAD
The applications dismissed included those filed by IHC Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Babar Sattar, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Saman Rafat Imtiaz. Apart from the IHC judges, appeals filed by former judge Tahir Faraz Abbasi, the Karachi Bar Association, Raisat Ali Azad, and Shoaib Shaheen were also dismissed due to lack of follow-up.
The bench observed that the petitioners had shown no interest in pursuing their cases and stated that further proceedings were unnecessary in their absence. The court noted that maintaining appeals without the participation of the appellants was not viable.
With Monday’s order, the Federal Constitutional Court effectively left intact an earlier five-member Supreme Court ruling that had upheld the transfer of IHC judges under Article 200. That decision had validated the federal government’s authority to issue transfer orders based on the administrative recommendations of the judiciary.
During the hearing, the court granted time to the Lahore High Court Bar Association to file its written objections on the matter. The bench also allowed the founder of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and Raja Maqsood Nawaz Khan to submit additional arguments. However, the court did not set a new date for further hearings and adjourned the proceedings indefinitely.
The recent dismissal follows a series of objections previously raised by the IHC judges regarding the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court. Last week, the five judges had moved a separate plea contesting the transfer of their intra-court appeal to the newly formed court. They had argued that the matter should be remitted to the Supreme Court rather than heard by the Federal Constitutional Court.
In their petition, the judges contended that the intra-court appeal had been shifted under the 27th Constitutional Amendment, which they argued was inconsistent with the Constitution of Pakistan. According to their stance, the amendment had altered the structural balance among the three branches of the state, legislature, executive and judiciary, as defined under the 1973 Constitution. They maintained that constitutional amendments should not be used to curtail judicial authority or impair the functioning of the superior courts. The judges cited previous Supreme Court precedents that, in their view, affirmed the principle of separation of powers and delineated the scope of judicial authority.
The background dispute began earlier this year after the five IHC judges wrote a letter highlighting concerns over alleged external interference in judicial matters. Their letter raised several constitutional questions, including the limits of transfer powers under Article 200, the legal status and jurisdiction of the newly established Federal Constitutional Court, and issues related to administrative independence within the judiciary.
After the Supreme Court upheld the transfers, the judges filed intra-court appeals. However, the subsequent procedural shift to the Federal Constitutional Court created a new layer of dispute, leading to last week’s objections.
To hear the appeals, the Federal Constitutional Court had formed a larger bench comprising Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan, Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Baqar Najafi, Justice K. K. Agha, Justice Rozi Khan, and Justice Arshad Hussain Shah.
With the dismissal of the appeals for non-prosecution, the constitutional questions raised by the IHC judges remain unresolved at this stage. The Federal Constitutional Court has not announced when, or if, the jurisdictional issues raised in the separate objection petition will be taken up.
The case remains pending without a scheduled date, and further proceedings will resume only when the court directs.