1. Introduction:
It is uncommon for judges in Pakistan to file a petition against their Chief Justice. However, in a vivid example of how the balance of power in Pakistan’s judiciary can swing, five judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) *Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz* petitioned the Supreme Court of Pakistan against their Chief Justice, IHC Aamer Farooq.
The petition concerns the Chief Justice’s administrative functions, specifically the powers dealing with the:
The petition is a historical and landmark moment, and a testimony to how power is concentrated at the *Chief Justice* position, for *it is more than uncommon* for serving judges to file a legal petition challenging the powers of their Chief Justice.
2. The Main Issue — “Administrative Powers”
Within the framework of Pakistani judicial custom and court system, the Chief Justice of a High Court or the Supreme Court, becomes the “Chief Master of the Roster.”
This implies that the Chief Justice has the authority to determine:
Which cases are allocated to which benches
When and how many judges will sit to hear a matter
Which cases will be moved or rescheduled
However, the judges who petitioned pointed out that this authority seemed to be misused suggesting that certain cases were strategically allocated or removed in a way that created a disparity in judicial independence.
The Justices were asking the Supreme Court to explain how far a Chief Justice’s administrative powers stretch, posing a risk of arbitrariness or unconstitutionality.
3. One Judge’s Separate Petition
One of the five judges, (reportedly Justice Babar Sattar) who was obstructed from hearing cases due to an administrative order imposed by the Chief Justice, was forced to file an individual constitutional petition.
This order in his view was “mala fide” (done in bad faith).
He argued that no Chief Justice can suspend a judge’s judicial functions, without a clearly defined legal framework, which made the matter far more serious, in that it suggested possible internal disciplinary misuse within the High Court system.
4. Why This Matters — Judicial Independence at Risk
This internal conflict shows governance and transparency issues within Pakistan’s judiciary.
This raises the following issues:
The extent of the Chief Justice’s power and whether it should be balanced with other judges or an internal committee.
The fairness of bench formation, especially in politically sensitive or major cases.
The trust of the judiciary. When judges internally critique fairness, it raises concerns about the system’s integrity.
This petition is most likely a primary example of the judiciary seeking reform, and it will most likely streamline the rules regarding the Chief Justices’s administrative control to mitigate bias and overreach.
5. Wider Implications
This dispute is a source of national conversations about the judiciary’s internal accountability and transparency.
Bar associations and other legal academics proposed a “Judicial Council” to oversee the division of administrative powers, which has so far been the sole purview of a single individual.
It highlights the friction between independence and order: Are all judges participants in the decision-making equally, or should the Chief Justice have full administrative control?
6. Conclusion
The Islamabad High Court judges' dispute with their Chief Justice is more than an internal disagreement; it is a historic test case for democracy in the judiciary in Pakistan.
If handled properly, it can enhance the judiciary’s strength by fostering respect, distributed control, and responsibility.
But, it will go unaddressed or politicized, it can increase fragmentation and distrust the public in one of the most important pillars of Pakistan's democracy.
