Judicial Commission of Pakistan’s transfer-only policy for IHC judges challenged

An Islamabad High Court writ petition challenges the Judicial Commission of Pakistan's (JCP) April 28 decision to only allow transfers for filling high court judge vacancies, arguing it lacks constitutional backing and conflicts with Article 175A(8). The petitioner, Supreme Court Advocate Syed Nayyab Hassan Gardezi, contends the JCP decision disregarded the procedure in its April 29 transfer notifications and that it cannot create a category of high court vacancies exempt from the constitutional requirement.

The JCP decision was allegedly introduced during meetings without proper notice, and the Rules contain no amendment provisions or majority vote requirement for such changes. The petitioner questions the JCP composition at the time of the decision, arguing it omits key members prescribed by the Constitution for IHC appointments. The impugned decision governs future appointments, but was taken during transfer meetings, not appointments, with a different prescribed composition.

The petitioner seeks fresh appointments via the constitutional process, citing procedural and compositional defects. The IHC currently functions with a chief justice and nine judges, while three vacancies remain unfilled for over five months. The petition also challenges the decision on discrimination, retrospectivity, and unlawfully limiting judicial discretion, requesting interim relief to restrain the JCP from recommending any transfers until the petition is resolved.