Bar councils, lawmakers express concern at IHC judges’ transfer

The recent decision by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s (JCP) to transfer three Islamabad High Court (IHC) judges to other provincial high courts, has drawn a sharp backlash from legal bodies and parliamentarians, with critics openly questioning whether the move was punitive in nature.The controversy deepens against the backdrop of a letter written in 2024 by a group of IHC judges to the then Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), in which they raised concerns about alleged interference by intelligence agencies in their judicial work — an extraordinary disclosure that sent shockwaves through the country’s legal and political establishment. Many observers now believe the transfers are directly linked to that letter.

The Islamabad Bar Council (IBC) was among the first to sound the alarm. In a strongly worded statement, IBC Vice Chairman Ch Asif Irfan and Executive Committee Chairman Muhammad Zafar Khokhar demanded a “structured, periodic and across-the-board rotation policy” for IHC and subordinate court judges, based on uniform and disclosed criteria. “The council has taken serious notice of the recent transfer of three judges from the IHC, which appears to be lacking transparency and raises concerns of mala fide intent,” the statement read.

The council argued that “isolated and non-uniform transfers, undertaken without any disclosed objective criteria” were damaging to public confidence and judicial integrity. Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the president may transfer a high court judge to another court on the advice of the Chief Justice, but the bar maintained that any such rotation must be “free from arbitrariness or extraneous considerations.”

The Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) echoed these sentiments. While acknowledging that the transfers fell within the constitutional framework, the association warned that decisions affecting the composition of courts carry “significant institutional importance” and must be approached with due care.

“It is imperative that such measures do not, in any manner, undermine the independence of the judiciary, which remains a cornerstone of the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system,” the association said, urging competent authorities to formulate a comprehensive and transparent rotation mechanism.

Among the judges transferred is Justice Babar Sattar, who has been moved to the Peshawar High Court (PHC) — a transfer that has prompted a separate controversy in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Bar Council (KPBC), in a meeting chaired by its chairman Malik Imad Azam, expressed strong reservations over what it described as a “unilateral” decision by the JCP. The council argued that any transfer of a judge to the PHC should be made on a reciprocal basis, with a simultaneous transfer of a PHC judge to another court, so that the provincial bench’s overall strength is not affected. The KPBC warned it would “fully resist any unconstitutional move” and threatened to launch a province-wide protest movement if its concerns were ignored. The PHC currently has 20 judges functioning against a sanctioned strength of 30; Justice Sattar’s addition would bring that number to 21.

In the Senate, voices from across the political divide weighed in — though not all reached the same conclusion. JUI-F Senator Kamran Murtaza was unequivocal in his assessment, saying on the Spotlight news show with Munizae Jahangir: “Have the judges been transferred as punishment? Yes, I absolutely see it that way — they were forcibly transferred as punishment.” He went further, suggesting the real aim may be to compel the judges to resign. “If the Chief Justice of the High Court refuses to accept a judge, then legally it may not be wrong, but morally it is wrong,” he said. “It seems that this transfer has been made so that the judges resign.”

Fellow show panelist, Senator Humayun Mohmand of the opposition Tehreek-i-Insaaf  called for a principled approach, arguing that while judicial rotation may be acceptable in theory, its credibility depended entirely on how and when it was applied. “There should be a rotation policy if judges are to be transferred, but this exchange should not be linked to any event, as it raises questions about decision-making,” he said. He also invoked an international precedent, noting that the European Commission had previously ruled that transferring judges without their consent undermines judicial independence.

The ruling coalition’s PML-N senator Afnan Ullah Khan, another panelist, pushed back against the criticism, defending the JCP as a more transparent body than its predecessors. He argued that the commission, which includes thirteen members drawn from both the treasury and the opposition benches, was a far cry from the one-man decision-making that, in his view, characterised earlier eras.

“Former CJP Saqib Nisar had formed a judicial mafia, and they would make decisions by forming benches of like-minded judges,” he said. “Today, we stand in a better position than the past.”

The JCP’s decision, however, has done little to quiet a legal community already on edge. With bar associations calling for transparent criteria and senators drawing direct lines between the transfers and the judges’ 2024 letter, the episode has reignited a broader debate about who guards the guardians — and whether institutional checks are strong enough to insulate the judiciary from political pressure.