Reasoning for judges’ transfer is laughable: Munir A. Malik

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Wednesday adjourned the ongoing hearing regarding the transfer and appointment of judges and government’s overarching role in judicial matters till tomorrow (Thursday). The case, being heard by a five-member larger bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, rests on questions about the legitimacy of recent judicial appointments and transfers. During Monday’s proceedings, seasoned lawyer Munir A. Malik launched a scathing critique of the government’s actions, calling its reasoning for the transfers “laughable.”

Malik argued that under the High Court Act, judges can be appointed from different provinces but the law makes no provision for inter-province transfers. “The government’s justification for these transfers is absurd,” Malik told the court. He revealed that the Judicial Commission of Pakistan had only filled two of five vacant positions, leading the government to make its own appointments.

The lawyer connected the transfers to a recent letter written by six IHC judges alleging interference in judicial affairs. “The real reason behind these transfers is that letter from IHC judges,” Malik claimed. He also pointed to irregularities in some appointments, noting one judge faced questions about their educational degree while another held foreign residency.

Justice Shahid Bilal Hassan, part of the larger bench, engaged in a revealing exchange with Malik about the judges’ letter. “In my 13 years on the bench, I’ve never encountered a situation like this,” Justice Hassan remarked, calling the circumstances unprecedented. He added pointedly: “No one has contacted me about this matter.”

The hearing will resume Thursday when Malik is expected to continue his arguments. The outcome could have significant ramifications for Pakistan’s judicial landscape, particularly regarding the appointment and transfer of judges.

The case has become a flashpoint in ongoing debates about judicial independence in Pakistan. Legal experts say it could set important precedents about the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive.