IHC halts registrar from transferring cases without legal justification or approval
Court questions acting CJ’s powers over bench reassignments and administrative handling
April 11, 2025
- IHC judges issue 12-page written verdict on transfer of cases.
- Tyrian White, Asif Ali Zardari rulings referenced in case.
- Lahore High Court model deemed irrelevant for IHC in verdict.
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has barred the deputy registrar (judicial) from transferring cases between benches without a lawful basis, issuing strong guidelines amid rising controversy over judicial bench reconstitution.
A division bench comprising Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan issued a 12-page verdict, highlighting irregularities in the administrative actions of Acting IHC Chief Justice Sardar Sarfraz Dogar.
The ruling clarified that, as per the High Court Rules and Orders, only the chief justice has authority to approve the roster, while marking and fixing of cases lies with the deputy registrar.
The court noted that the deputy registrar has no powers to withdraw a case from one bench and assign it to another without clear legal justification. It pointed to the recent transfer of a blasphemy case from a division bench back to a single bench, stressing that there was no recusal or bias to warrant such reassignment.
The judgment added that the acting CJ's office did not assist in handling the matter appropriately, resulting in a confusing and concerning situation. The court advised adherence to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and High Court Rules to avoid similar issues in future.
The verdict referenced landmark rulings in the Asif Zardari and Tyrian White cases. It upheld that a judge must decide independently whether to hear a case, and while the chief justice can form benches, changes to bench composition require valid reasons such as recusal.
Additionally, the court underscored that the Lahore High Court's multiple-seating model does not apply to the IHC. If the deputy registrar deems a transfer necessary, they must consult the concerned judge's reader rather than unilaterally reassigning cases.
