The Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) on Tuesday approved the transfer of three judges from the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to other high courts.

According to an official handout, Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi chaired a meeting of the commission at the Supreme Court.

“The meetings were convened by the secretary of the JCP in exercise of powers conferred by clause (22) of Article 175A of the Constitution, as the chairman of the Commission, while giving reason therefor, declined to convene the meeting on the requisition by one-third of the total members,” it said.

The statement said the commission approved the transfer of Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kiani to the Lahore High Court (LHC), the transfer of Justice Babar Sattar to the Peshawar High Court (PHC) and the transfer of Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz to the Sindh High Court (SHC).

The statement said that the transfers were approved by the majority.

The JCP also decided that any vacancy arising as a result of the transfer of a judge from a high court “shall be filled through transfer only”, and such a vacancy “shall not, in any manner, be treated as a vacancy for initial appointment”, the handout said.

The statement also said that the member who had requisitioned the meetings for the proposed transfer of Justice Arbab M. Tahir from the IHC to the Balochistan High Court, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro from the IHC to the SHC, “withdrew the respective proposals”.

The transfers have come at a time when deliberations are under way for the induction of new judges to the IHC. Several prominent lawyers are being considered for elevation, including Ayyaz Shaukat, a former advocate general and tax law expert who was recently appoi­­n­ted chairman of the Social Media Pro­tection and Regulatory Authority. Other names under consideration inclu­­de Usman G. Rashid Cheema, Umair Maje­­ed Malik, and Sultan Mazhar Sher Khan.

In addition to members of the bar, two serving district and sessions judges, Shahrukh Arjumand and Humayun Dilawar, are also among the leading candidates for elevation to the IHC.

‘Lacking transparency’

The Islamabad Bar Council (IBC) raised alarm on the transfers, saying that they were, “prima facie, lacking transparency”. The lawyers body warned that “selective transfers undermine judicial independence”.

In a statement, IBC Vice Chairman Asif Irfan and Executive Committee Chairman Muhammad Zafar Khokhar demanded a “structured, periodic and across-the-board rotation policy” for IHC and subordinate court judges, based on uniform criteria.

“The council has taken serious notice of the recent transfer of three judges from the IHC, which appears to be lacking transparency and raises concerns of mala fide intent,” the statement said. The council did not name the judges or specify when the orders were issued.

The bar argued that “isolated and non-uniform transfers, undertaken without any disclosed objective criteria” damage public confidence and judicial integrity.

“Any rotation policy must be based on objective, uniform and transparent criteria, applicable equally to all judges,” the council said, adding that transfers must be “free from arbitrariness or extraneous considerations.”

Separately, the Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) stressed that “decisions impacting the composition of the courts carry significant institutional importance and must be approached with due care. It is imperative that such measures do not, in any manner, undermine the independence of the judiciary, which remains a cornerstone of the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system”.

The association reaffirmed its commitment to upholding judicial independence and expected that all relevant authorities will continue to be guided by these fundamental principles.

The bar urged “competent authorities” to formulate a comprehensive rotation mechanism in the interest of “fair and transparent administration of justice.”

CJP’s reservations

Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi, who also serves as chairman of the JCP, had earlier raised serious constitutional concerns over the prospect of transferring judges from the IHC.

In his response to informal requests by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar, the CJP had warned that such transfers could undermine federalism and equitable representation, reducing judicial appointments to temporary and reversible administrative decisions.

The IHC chief justice had also sought a JCP meeting to consider the transfer of five judges, and while the CJP initially declined to endorse the proposal, a requisition signed by five JCP members was submitted on April 7. Under Article 175A(22) of the Constitution, the chairman must convene a meeting within 15 days upon such a request. Hence, a JCP meeting was held today.

But the CJP had earlier warned that transferring five out of nine IHC judges without immediate replacements would create significant vacancies and institutional instability.

Questioning the lack of stated reasons, the CJP said that such transfers could assume a punitive character, effectively amounting to removal without due process. He had emphasised that the Constitution provided a mechanism under Article 209 through the Supreme Judicial Council for addressing allegations against judges.

According to him, allowing transfers that function as de facto removals would bypass constitutional safeguards and set a dangerous precedent, eroding judicial independence and public confidence.

Fissures within IHC

The transfers from the IHC follow an amendment to Article 200 of the Constitution, which empowers the JCP to recommend such transfers without requiring the consent of the judges concerned.

Prior to the amendment, introduced through the 27th Constitution Amendment, a judge’s consent was mandatory for transfer from one high court to another. The revised provision has now vested this authority in the JCP.

It also stipulates that a judge who refuses to accept a transfer may face proceedings under Article 209 before the Supreme Judicial Council.

The transferred judges were among the six who had, in a startling letter written to SJC members in March 2024, accused the country’s intelligence apparatus of interference in judicial affairs, including attempts to pressure judges through abduction and torture of their relatives and secret surveillance inside their homes.

They were also among the five judges who had formally opposed in February 2025 the then-potential transfer of then-LHC Justice Dogar, warning that his elevation as the IHC chief justice would violate constitutional procedures and judicial norms.

Nevertheless, Justice Dogar was appointed as the acting IHC chief justice on Feb 13, 2025. The next day, he took the oath in a ceremony where all IHC judges were invited, but five of them — including those being transferred — did not attend the ceremony and boycotted it.

Following the development, the IHC went through a major administrative restructuring, which notably reduced the authority of senior puisne judge Justice Kayani — who previously held key decision-making roles — following amendments to the high court rules.

The IHC Administration Com­mittee, previously comprising the chief justice, the senior puisne judge and a senior judge, was restructured to include CJ Dogar and two of his nominees. This reconstitution significantly altered the court’s decision-making authority.

Justice Dogar later took his oath as the IHC CJ on July 8, 2025. And the five IHC senior judges who had opposed his transfer were sidelined in the subsequent reshuffling of key committees.

In September last year, the five judges had submitted separate petitions to the Supreme Court together against a number of issues affecting the court, from the composition of benches to rosters to case transfers.