By Malik Asad

Copyright dawn

ISLAMABAD: The legal community seemed divided after images of five high court judges filing their own petitions before the Supreme Court were flashed across TV screens on Friday.

While some quarters backed the Islamabad High Court judges’ decision to approach the apex court “as a last resort”, others viewed the development as being “highly unfortunate”, saying that it would only further erode public trust in the bench.

Former IHC judge Noorul Haq N Qureshi noted that judges usually become litigants only as a last resort.

Sharing his own experience, he recalled that during his tenure at the IHC, several internal issues related to the distribution of powers and authority cropped up.

But instead of writing letters to each other or filing petitions before the Supreme Court, judges made efforts to resolve the issues amicably, he said.

However, he was quick to add that the current situation might be more severe, leaving the judges with no option but to turn to litigation.

Senior lawyer Riasat Ali Azad also defended the judges’ action, maintaining that it was their constitutional right to file these petitions.

He even cited an Indian court ruling, which affirmed that like any citizen, judges also have the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts if they feel aggrieved.

Former Islamabad Bar Council vice chairman Qazi Adil Aziz was of the view that filing petitions was a routine matter, and praised the judges for not making a mountain out of a mole hill.

He pointed out that the IHC judges had handled the matter sensibly; a large number of lawyers had expressed their willingness to accompany them to the Supreme Court in the form of a rally, but they opted to travel discreetly in a single car and not cause a scene.

Barrister Asad Rahim noted that the IHC had again burnished its reputation for judicial independence, saying that the petitions require immediate resolution by the Supreme Court.

Referring to Justice Jahangiri’s case in particular, he noted that even the Supreme Judicial Council has the authority to restrain a judge from carrying out his functions.

Advocate Abdul Moiz Jafferii saw this controversy as an outcome of the “toying with the constitutional order [through] the 26th amendment”, saying that the error could have been corrected if the Supreme Court had intervened in a timely manner once the amendment was challenged.

However, not everyone was as supportive, not least the litigants whose cases could not be heard due to the judges’ unavailability.

Indeed, the hearing schedule was disrupted on Friday, and the unavailability of five judges resulted in the cancellation of several cause lists, causing a degree of consternation for litigants, as a wide range of cases, including important tax-related matters, were adjourned without hearing.

Islamabad High Court Bar Associa-tion (IHCBA) President Syed Wajid Ali Gillani remarked that although the judges have the right to file petitions, they should have ideally gone to the Supreme Court after disposing of the matters fixed before them.

Legal expert Barrister Zaffarullah Khan noted that there had never been an instance where judges of superior courts had turned hostile against each other to the extent of approaching higher courts, as was currently being witnessed.

Such divisions impact the public in two ways: litigants suffer from frequent cancellations of hearings, and public trust in the judiciary is eroded, he said.

Published in Dawn, September 20th, 2025