The percolating tensions among the high court judges reached new heights after a three-member tribunal declared another three-member tribunal of brother judges as “defunct” and revoked the order regarding the repatriation of the judges.
In a related development, IHC Justice Arbab Mohammad Tahir also overruled the order of the “defunct tribunal,” allowing the appeal of 24 justices of Islamabad’s judiciary who were affected by the order. The judgement was announced by Justice Tahir on Thursday, following its reservation approximately one month prior.
The earlier tribunal’s March 21 order was suspended by the Islamabad Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal (IJST), which is composed of Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro, Justice Mohammad Azam Khan, and Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas. Three days following the president’s reconstitution of the tribunal, it had issued its order.
Nevertheless, the tribunal that was previously chaired by Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri had pronounced the reconstitution of the IJST to be illegal, ordered the repatriation of over two dozen judges to their parent high courts, and prohibited the absorption of 12 judges from the district courts.
The new tribunal has declared that the order passed by its predecessors was not legally valid.
The former tribunal’s order was suspended as a result of a civil miscellaneous (CM) application filed by a district judiciary judge, who requested a restraining order against the tribunal’s actions.
The tribunal, which consisted of Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, and Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, heard a portion of the case on March 13, 2025, and directed the submission of written arguments within two weeks, according to the applicant’s counsel. Nevertheless, it is alleged that one of the tribunal members made inappropriate remarks during the hearing, which were perceived as biassed against the applicant.
The applicant filed a formal complaint in response to this behaviour. The Islamabad Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal was reconstituted by the President of Pakistan on March 18. However, the tribunal issued a brief order on March 21, which the applicant characterised as lacking jurisdiction, as the bench had essentially ceased to exist.
The tribunal determined that the ruling was coram non judice, meaning it was made by a forum without legal authority, and therefore no further suspension was required in response to another appeal.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) was also petitioned by 24 justices who were on deputation in Islamabad’s judiciary concerning the order for their repatriation that had been issued by the defunct tribunal.
Justice Tahir reserved the decision on the petition of 24 judges and announced it after a month, thereby resolving the ambiguity among the judges.
District and sessions judges, civil judges serving on deputation from Punjab, Sindh, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and additional district judges comprised the petitioners.
In an intriguing twist, the judge whose petition the superseded tribunal used to jolt the district judiciary had also submitted an application to the newly constituted tribunal, asserting that the March 21 decision exceeded the relief he was pursuing.
The application explicitly stated that he did not seek any direction against the assimilation and promotion of any judge of the subordinate judiciary; rather, he was solely interested in service benefits.
The three-member bench’s order, which was issued on March 21, addressed all matters and provided relief for the petitions that were omitted. However, it did not address the relief he was seeking in any way.
The hearing was cancelled without providing any explanation, despite the fact that the newly established tribunal was scheduled to address the issue on May 29.
