Noor Ul Huda is a JURIST staff correspondent in Pakistan and a recent graduate of Punjab University Law College. She files this dispatch from Lahore. 

Pakistan has long been a nation where the winds of change blow frequently, especially when it comes to its judiciary. Ever since the 26th Constitutional Amendment, there hasn’t been a single day that hasn’t brought some riveting news from the corridors of justice.

Just three days ago, in a rather ceremonial yet controversial move, Justice Sardar Mohammad Sarfraz Dogar took the oath as the Chief Justice (CJ) of the Islamabad High Court (IHC). His journey to this position, however, has not been ordinary. In February 2025, he was transferred from the Lahore High Court, Lahore (LHC), where he ranked 15th on the seniority list. Justice Dogar’s appointment has sparked a legal firestorm that’s still smoldering in Pakistan’s judicial circles.

The issue? The recalibration of judicial seniority. Justice Dogar was transferred to IHC as a senior-most judge, a move that paved the way for his elevation as Acting Chief Justice under Article 196 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, which provides for the transfer of judges from other Courts in the absence of the Chief Justice of that High Court. However, this sparked intense backlash, leading to petitions questioning whether the transfer had compromised judicial independence or, worse, manipulated the seniority list of IHC Judges for political motives.

It all began when five judges of the IHC filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the transfers of three judges – including that of Justice Sarfraz Dogar – from their respective high courts. The petitioners, including Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Justice Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Justice Babar Sattar, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz alongside the Karachi Bar Association (KBA) and Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA), called for an injunction to stop the newly transferred judges from assuming their roles.

The Supreme Court weighed in on the matter on June 19, with a narrow 3-2 ruling. The crux of the judgment involved Article 200 of the Constitution, which governs the transfer of judges by the President. This article deals with the four-tier formula, emphasizing that the transfer of a judge must involve the consent of the judge himself, the high court from where they are transferred, the receiving high court, and the consultation of the Chief Justice of Pakistan with the President of Pakistan. The ruling also made it clear that terms such as seniority and the permanent or temporary nature of the transfer should have been addressed upfront. The matter was partly remanded to the President of Pakistan, who was asked to determine the service records of the transferred judges and decide whether their transfers would be permanent or temporary, allowing CJ Dogar to continue in his office.

But the saga did not end there. In a scathing dissenting opinion, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan expressed his opposition, declaring the notification regarding the transfer of these judges as “null and void.” Justice Afghan contended that the process was flawed, violating several constitutional provisions, and accused the President of rushing through the transfers without meaningful consultation. According to Justice Afghan, the transfers lacked transparency and were politically motivated.

On June 29, 2025, President Asif Ali Zardari, despite the Supreme Court order being challenged in Intra Court Appeal (ICA) by the IHC judges, issued a formal notification confirming the transfer of Justice Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio, and Justice Muhammad Asif to the IHC, making Justice Dogar the Chief Justice. This notification effectively concluded the uncertainty around the transfers, but it also underscored the growing concerns about the state of judicial appointments in Pakistan.

The Supreme Court ruling and the ensuing notification by the Ministry of Law and Justice and President are part of a larger debate on the state of Pakistan’s judiciary. The corridors of justice, once believed to be the sanctum of impartiality and fairness, now seem to be inhabited by a system where laws are bent, and constitutional principles are often overlooked. With the judiciary already aboard a wrecked ship, struggling to uphold the constitution, the 26th amendment drove the final nail into the coffin, causing it to begin sinking.

The mind wrestles with a question: “If judges themselves are not receiving justice, how can one expect justice to be served to an ordinary person?”