ISLAMABAD: As many as 24 judges of Islamabad’s district courts have challenged the March 21 decision of Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal to repatriate them to their respective provincial high courts.

The petitioners are: Anti-Terrorism Court-I Judge Abual Hasnat Mohammad Zulqarnain, District and Sessions Judge-East Mohammad Yar Gondal, District and Sessions Judge-West Nasir Javed Rana, Anti-Terrorism Court-II Judge Tahir Abbas Sipra, Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADSJ) Javed Iqbal Sipra, ADSJ Ch. Amir Zia, ADSJ Mohammad Afzal Majoka, Judge National Accountability Court Mohammad Ali Warraich, Civil Judges Aftab Ahmed Rana, Rao Ijaz Ahmad, Aqsa Hanif, Adnan Yousaf, Ahmed Shahzad Gondal, Yasir Mehmood, Abdul Majid, Mohammad Mureed Abbas, Kamran Zaheer Abbasi, Zunaira Zafar, Ahtisham Muqarrab, Mohammad Asif, Danish Batool, Khalid Hussain Jatoi, Adnan Rasool Larik and Haseena Saqlain.

These judges were appointed to the Islamabad District Judiciary on deputation from Punjab, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

As per the background, a tribunal, comprising Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar and Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, was hearing a judicial service appeal of Additional District and Sessions Judge Mohammad Shabbir.

Petition says tribunal’s order issued after its reconstitution by the President was passed “without lawful authority”

However, all three members of the tribunal were replaced by a notification issued by the President on March 18.

The President appointed Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro, Justice Mohammad Azam Khan and Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas as the new members of the tribunal.

However, the tribunal led by Justice Jahangiri, set aside the presidential notification and declared the appointment of Justice Soomro, Justice Azam Khan and Justice Minhas as unconstitutional.

Interestingly, ‘superseded’ members are among those five members who challenged the transfer of Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Soomro and Justice Mohammad Asif in the Islamabad High Court (IHC).

The petition of affected judges argued that the tribunal’s order issued after its reconstitution by the President on March 18, 2025 was passed “without lawful authority” by a “coram non judice” (unauthorised) forum.

The tribunal had allowed an appeal by respondent Mohammad Shabbir who contested the promotions and absorption of certain judicial officers in Islamabad, alleging violations of service rules.

IHC Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir heard the petition. After preliminary hearing, he admitted the petition for regular hearing.

The IHC’s order sheet outlined 11 questions, including whether the tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction under the Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 2016; whether the petitioners’ rights to a fair hearing (Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution) were violated.

Moreover, it asked if the tribunal had the authority to declare the President’s notification reconstituting it as “null and void” and whether the tribunal could adjudicate on the validity of laws or rules, such as the Islamabad Judicial Service Rules, 2011.

The judicial officers claimed that they were neither parties to judge Shabbir’s original appeal nor given notice or a hearing before the tribunal’s order. They asserted that the tribunal overstepped its mandate by ordering repatriation and questioning the authority of the acting chief justice and the President.

The petition called the order “self-contradictory” and a violation of constitutional safeguards for deputationists.

Justice Tahir directed the issuance of notices to respondents, including the Ministry of Law and Justice, and appointed Senior Advocate Abdul Rahim Bhatti as amicus curiae to assist the court.

The attorney general for Pakistan has also been summoned to address constitutional interpretations. The case has been adjourned to April 28 for further proceedings.

Published in Dawn, April 12th, 2025