April 28, 2026
By Rehan Piracha
ISLAMABAD
The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) on Tuesday approved the transfer of three judges of the Islamabad High Court to other high courts across the country — a decision that has drawn sharp criticism from opposition politicians and raised serious constitutional questions about judicial independence and executive overreach.
According to a press statement issued by the Jucidicial Commission of Pakistan, the meeting, chaired by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi in his capacity as JCP chairman, was convened by the Commission’s secretary after the chairman had earlier declined to call it himself, despite a requisition submitted by one-third of the Commission’s total membership. Under Article 175A(22) of the Constitution, a meeting must be convened within fifteen days of such a request.
After deliberating in separate sittings — with the respective chief justices of the concerned high courts joining as members for each individual transfer — the Commission approved, by majority vote, the following transfers: Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiani from the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to the Lahore High Court; Justice Babar Sattar from the IHC to the Peshawar High Court; and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz from the IHC to the High Court of Sindh.
Two additional proposals — the transfer of Justice Arbab M. Tahir to the Balochistan High Court and Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro to the Sindh High Court — were withdrawn by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar, who had originally requisitioned those sittings.
“The Commission further decided, by majority of its total membership, that any vacancy arising as a result of the transfer of a Judge from a High Court shall be filled through transfer only, and such vacancy shall not, in any manner, be treated as a vacancy for initial appointment,” the JCP statement concluded.
All three transferred judges are among the six IHC judges who wrote a joint letter in March 2024 to the Supreme Judicial Council, alleging interference by intelligence agencies in judicial functions. The letter, widely seen as an act of institutional defiance, drew national attention and set the stage for what critics now describe as a retaliatory response.
Before the meeting convened, news reports claimed that Justice Babar Sattar wrote to Chief Justice Afridi requesting a personal hearing, arguing that under Article 200 of the Constitution he was entitled to be heard before any decision on his transfer was made. The Commission, however, decided by majority that it was not obligated to hear the affected judges before deciding on their transfers. The denial of this request — despite it being grounded in the amended Constitution — drew immediate criticism.
In reports published in newspapers, Chief Justice of Pakistan Afridi himself had earlier raised substantive objections to several of the proposed transfers, though he ultimately presided over the proceedings.
In a written response to informal requests from IHC Chief Justice Dogar, the CJP warned that transferring five out of nine IHC judges simultaneously — without immediate replacements — would create significant vacancies and risk institutional instability. He cautioned that returning Justice Soomro, who had been moved from the Sindh High Court to the IHC only in February 2025, would defeat the purpose of that earlier transfer, which had been intended to ensure representation for Sindh within the IHC. Sending both Justice Soomro and Justice Imtiaz to Sindh would, he argued, leave Sindh with no representation in the IHC at all.
The CJP also questioned the absence of stated reasons for the transfers, warning that they risked taking on a punitive character and effectively amounting to removal without due process. He stressed that the Constitution already provides a mechanism — Article 209 and the Supreme Judicial Council — for addressing allegations against judges, and that allowing transfers to function as de facto removals would erode judicial independence and public confidence.
Opposition members attend JCP meeting
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chairman Barrister Gohar Khan, speaking ahead of the JCP sittings, described the proceedings as “unprecedented,” noting that in fifty years no high court judge had been transferred to another high court without his consent.
“This is arbitrary, not fair, reflects a punitive nature and executive control of the judiciary,” he said, calling on the government to withdraw the transfer summary. Despite those objections, the PTI’s two opposition members on the Commission — Barrister Gohar Khan and Barrister Ali Zafar — chose to attend and participate in the proceedings for the first time since its new composition after the passage of the controversial 27th Constitutional Amendment.
Former Senate chairman Mian Raza Rabbani also condemned the transfers as “undesirable,” warning they would undermine federalism and the equitable representation of Pakistan’s federating units within the IHC — a principle he said the 18th Amendment had specifically sought to protect. He added that any constitutional amendment permitting transfers without a judge’s consent itself impinges on judicial independence.