ISLAMABAD, May 26 (APP/DNA):The Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan has argued before the Supreme Court that judges can be transferred from one High Court to another, both temporarily and permanently, with the consent of the concerned judges, Chief Justice of the two High Courts and the Chief Justice of Pakistan.
The AGP begin his argument before the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on Monday after Advocate Faisal Siddiqui, Counsel for the complaining judges, concluded his arguments.
The five-member Constitutional Bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard petitions challenging the transfer and seniority of judges in the IHC.
To a question by Justice Mazhar, Advocate Faisal Siddiqi replied that in India, seniority lists are unified and developed over decades, and transferring judges does not alter their seniority.
Justice Mazhar noted that in Pakistan, a judge’s transfer involves four levels of judicial consultation — the chief justices of both the concerned high courts and the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP). If any of them refuses the transfer, it cannot proceed.
Following Siddiqi’s arguments, Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan began his submissions, stating that under Article 200, judges can be transferred both temporarily and permanently.
He explained that temporary transfers include notifications and entitlements like additional allowances, while permanent transfers provide official accommodation. In time-bound transfers, the judge returns to their original court.
Awan clarified that permanently transferred judges leave a vacancy in their original court. He noted that judges transferred to the IHC were given official housing, but no additional allowances, and they did not need to retake the oath since it was not a fresh appointment.
Justice Mazhar questioned whether the seats of the transferred judges in their original courts had become vacant. Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan remarked that each high court has its own jurisdiction.
The AGP said the Constitution’s Third Schedule does not prescribe a separate oath for IHC judges, and the oath taken by IHC judges is the same as that taken by judges appointed through transfer. Justice Afghan asked if Article 200 required a new oath on transfer, to which the attorney general replied that no such requirement exists.
Justice Afghan further questioned why the final summary of the judges’ transfer mentioned no need for a new oath. Awan responded that there is already a Supreme Court ruling on the matter of judges’ seniority.
The attorney general also pointed out that out of the five judges who submitted petitions
:The Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman Awan has argued before the Supreme Court that judges can be){kind=link}