The recent controversy surrounding the proposed transfer of a Lahore High Court (LHC) judge to the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has reignited an age-old debate about judicial independence, constitutional propriety, and the seniority principle in Pakistan’s judicial system. The crux of the issue is whether a judge can be transferred from one high court to another in a way that allows them to bypass the traditional seniority system and assume the position of chief justice. This latest chapter in the ongoing saga of internal divisions within the superior judiciary has prompted serious questions about the integrity of the judicial appointment process and the potential erosion of judicial independence.
A group of five judges from the Islamabad High Court (IHC) recently wrote a letter addressing the chief justices of the Supreme Court and high courts, expressing their concerns regarding the proposed transfer. Their primary objection centers around the notion that such a transfer undermines the well-established norms of seniority and undermines institutional continuity. Traditionally, the senior-most puisne judge (the next most senior judge after the chief justice) of a high court is elevated to the position of chief justice, ensuring respect for seniority, continuity, and institutional integrity. However, a recent amendment to the judicial appointment process, introduced by the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) last year, allows for a broader panel of five senior-most judges to be considered for the chief justice position. While the amendment was made with the intent of providing flexibility in judicial appointments, the IHC judges argue that transferring a judge from another high court in this manner circumvents the traditional system and sets a dangerous precedent.
The objection raised by the IHC judges is grounded in both constitutional and historical reasoning. The judges assert that high courts are autonomous entities under the Constitution of Pakistan and that the 26th Amendment did not establish a transfer mechanism for high court judges. Article 200 of the Constitution, which allows for the transfer of judges with their consent and after consultation, has not been amended to accommodate permanent transfers between high courts. The IHC judges contend that the proposed transfer to the IHC chief justice position would be an unprecedented move that runs contrary to the established norms and legal framework governing judicial appointments.
The potential consequences of such a transfer raise significant concerns about the erosion of judicial independence. The judges fear that allowing such a transfer could pave the way for external influences to impact the leadership structure of a high court. They warn that appointing a judge from outside the existing hierarchy could be perceived as a politically motivated move or as the result of executive interference. This could result in damaging perceptions of favoritism, manipulation, or undue influence in the judicial appointment process.
On the other hand, the government’s defense of the transfer hinges on the argument that Article 200 provides a constitutional basis for judicial transfers. However, constitutional experts remain divided on whether the provision allows for the kind of transfer in question, particularly when it involves bypassing the seniority principle to appoint a judge from a different high court. The government’s position contends that such transfers are within the constitutional framework, but legal scholars question whether the broader implications of such a move align with the core principles of judicial independence and the sanctity of established norms.
The controversy surrounding this proposed transfer highlights the ongoing issues with Pakistan’s judicial appointment system, which has become increasingly contentious in recent years. The public airing of internal judicial disputes, particularly through letters and open statements, has the potential to undermine public confidence in the judiciary. While judicial independence is undeniably critical, the frequent release of letters and public statements by judges raises concerns about the politicization of the judiciary and the creation of divisions within the institution.
While some may argue that these letters serve to highlight legitimate concerns about the fairness and transparency of the judicial appointment process, others contend that they contribute to a public spectacle that undermines the judiciary’s credibility. The consistent leaking of internal communications to the media risks turning internal disagreements into a sideshow, rather than allowing for a more structured and dignified approach to addressing grievances within the judiciary.
Pl watch the video and subscribe to the YouTube channel of republicpolicy.com for quality podcasts:
Public trust in the judiciary is essential for the proper functioning of any democratic system, and the ongoing disputes regarding judicial appointments in Pakistan raise questions about the institution’s ability to maintain its independence and impartiality. If judges themselves are seen as divided over the interpretation of constitutional provisions and the legitimacy of judicial appointments, it becomes increasingly difficult for the public to view the judiciary as an impartial institution. The perception of judicial independence is as important as its actual practice, and the continued public airing of internal disputes risks eroding that perception.
Despite these concerns, the judges’ letter and the ongoing debate provide an important opportunity for reflection on the future of judicial appointments in Pakistan. While the traditional system of seniority has long been the norm, there is an argument to be made for greater flexibility in the selection of chief justices, provided that this flexibility does not undermine the principles of judicial independence or create a perception of undue political influence. The key challenge is finding a balance between flexibility and respect for established norms, ensuring that any changes to the judicial appointment process are in line with the Constitution and the broader goals of maintaining an independent judiciary.
In conclusion, the controversy over the proposed transfer of a judge from the Lahore High Court to the Islamabad High Court raises important questions about the intersection of constitutional law, judicial independence, and the integrity of Pakistan’s judicial system. While the government argues that such transfers are constitutionally valid, a significant number of judges, legal experts, and constitutional scholars caution against bypassing the seniority principle in this manner. Judicial transfers, particularly when they involve the elevation of a judge to the chief justice position, must be handled with care and in adherence to the principles of institutional integrity and independence. The public airing of internal disputes through letters and open statements should also be approached with caution, as it risks politicizing judicial matters and eroding public trust in the judiciary. Ultimately, a more structured and dignified approach to addressing grievances within the judiciary is essential to preserving the institution’s credibility and ensuring its continued independence.
