SC rules on high court chief justice's duties

Listen to article
The Supreme Court has ruled that any inaction on part of a chief justice of the high court in response to a complaint of a judicial officer regarding the interference of executive agencies would be contrary to his constitutional obligations under Article 203 of the Constitution.
"The Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court: firstly, acted within his constitutional authority under Article 203 to supervise the proceedings of subordinate courts, including the Anti-Terrorism Courts; and secondly, in light of the dismissal of the reference against the Presiding Judge by the Administrative Judge due to insufficient grounds, the Chief Justice was also fully justified in not taking further action on the transfer application, which lacked merit and was based solely on a reference that lacked compelling evidence.
"We are mindful of the fact that the Chief Justice of a High Court in a province is the paterfamilias of the judiciary within that province. Therefore, any inaction on his part in response to any such like complaint of a judicial officer would be contrary to his constitutional obligations under Article 203 of the Constitution," a four-page judgement authored by Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi read while hearing a petition filed by Punjab Prosecution Department against the order of then chief justice Lahore High Court (LHC) on applications moved by the state seeking transfer of cases from one presiding judge of the anti-terrorism court (ATC) to another.
The main thrust of the special prosecutor representing the state was that findings recorded in paras 8 and 9 of the orders were not only uncalled for but also beyond mandate of authority vested in the chief justice.
It is to be noted that former LHC CJ Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan had taken position against the executive agencies interference in ATC judges affairs.
He even took strong exception to the Punjab government's request to transfer the ATC Rawalpindi judge. The Punjab government was reluctant to appoint those ATCs judges who were recommended by ex-LHC chief justice.
He had referred complaint of ex-ATC judge Sargodha to the apex court which was hearing suo motu cases on six Islamabad High Court judges letter against the interference of agencies in their judicial functions.
In the meanwhile, the government with the help of ex-CJP Qazi Faez Isa was able to elevate Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan to the apex court. Four Supreme Court judges were not in favor of his elevation to the apex court as they believed the Punjab judiciary needed a strong administrative head.
Unlike ex-LHC CJ, former Islamabad High Court chief justice was unable to take action on the complaints of judges regarding executive interference.
A three-judge bench of the apex court led by CJP Afridi in its written order said it is essential to recognize the special supervisory authority vested in the chief justice of a high Court under Article 203 of the Constitution.
"Essentially, Article 203 of the Constitution entrusts the Chief Justice, as the administrative head of a High Court, with the responsibility to supervise and regulate the proceedings of all subordinate courts within the province, including the Anti-Terrorism Courts. Applying this constitutional mandate to the present cases, it is our view that the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, in his administrative capacity, was not only empowered to address the issue at hand with his discretion, but also duty-bound to protect the Presiding Judges of the District Judiciary from any undue executive influence," the order said.
The court noted that the reference brought by the state against the presiding judge of the ATC, alleging bias, was duly considered by the administrative judge.
"After taking into consideration both the allegations and the response of the Presiding Judge, the Administrative Judge decided to file the reference, but ultimately dismissed it, indicating that there were insufficient grounds to proceed further.
"Following this, the transfer application was filed, based solely on the fact that a reference had been made, despite no convincing evidence being presented to substantiate the allegations. This sequence reinforces the conclusion that the transfer request lacked sufficient merit to justify further action," the order said.
"We have also been informed by the learned Special Prosecutor representing the State that Presiding Judges of the Anti-Terrorism Courts, whose bias had been questioned by the State, have since been transferred.
"As such, there remains no live issue for immediate consideration. However, the State continues to be aggrieved particularly by the findings recorded in paras. 8 and 9 of the impugned orders, the costs imposed, and the referral of the matter for consideration of this Court in Suo Moto Case No. 1 of 2024, as recorded therein," the order read.
"To our mind, the challenged action of the Chief Justice being essentially administrative in nature, and that too, relating to managing and supervising the subordinates under the constitutional mandate envisaged under Article 203 of the Constitution, ought not to be disturbed, lest the same are blatantly unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary, which are not apparent in the circumstances of the present cases," it added.
The court also observed that the findings recorded in paras. 8 and 9 of the impugned orders, concerning the professional conduct of the judicial officers and state functionaries, appear to be somewhat personal in nature.
"While, mindful of the gravity of the observations made, we are of the view that judicial propriety necessitates circumspection, particularly, when commenting on the conduct of executive and judicial functionaries and all the more without due inquiry. Hence, we deem it necessary to clarify that such remarks, whether favourable or adverse, must not be seen as having any binding effect in future proceedings. The praise directed towards judicial officers should not be construed as a shield that protects them from legitimate scrutiny, nor should the critical remarks regarding state functionaries, particularly the Prosecutor General, be treated as a sword to prejudice or undermine their future conduct. In essence, these observations are not to be regarded as determinative or conclusive in any subsequent forum and any future assessment of their conduct should be made independently, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with the law," the order said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Recorder

18 hours ago

• Business Recorder

Finance bill contains drafting errors: experts

ISLAMABAD: Finance Bill (2025-26) contains drafting errors and contradictions amongst taxing statues including Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Federal Excise Act, 2005. Tax experts told Business Recorder that policymaker has been harmonizing the parallel provisions contained in the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Federal Excise Act, 2005 as all these are administered by the same officer of the field formations. But contrary to the established policy and past practice through Finance Bill 2025 certain contradictory amendments are proposed. The tax experts have pointed out that earlier all the three taxing statutes contained a provision that after issuance of show cause notice the assessment order was to be passed within a specified period and this provision was interpreted as mandatory in various judgments of the Supreme Court. Budget FY25-26: Finance bill still being discussed, says FBR However, through Finance Bill the provisions contained in Section 122(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is proposed to be omitted meaning thereby that there would be no time limit for passing the assessment order after issuance of show cause notice and practically the same can be passed within five years of the end of the Financial Year in which the relevant return of total income was filed. Contrary to this, the identical provision contained in Section 11G of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and sections of the Federal Excise Act would be continued. This differential treatment in the taxing statute administered by the same assessing officer does not sound to reason and is contrary to the norms of justice and fair play. When contacted, Shahid Jami, a Lahore based tax lawyer, explained that though Anomalies Committees have been constituted by the Federal Government but such fine points are not likely to be addressed by them as this may not be considered anomaly by them. He pointed out a drafting error according to which sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 pertaining to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal is intended to be substituted and the proposed amendment provide appeal only against the appeal order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and contrary to the earlier provision existing for decades no appeal has been provided against the order passed by the Zonal Commissioner and FBR under the Act or Rules. Jami stated that the wording appears to be erroneous in drafting and not intentional change in policy as the words 'under this Act and Rule made there under' exist in the proposed amendment but the authorities of Zonal Commissioner and FBR are missing. It is imperative that such drafting errors and contradictions are removed from the Finance Bill for uniformity of taxing statues and to protect the rights of the taxpayers. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Express Tribune

18 hours ago

• Express Tribune

Only state can announce jihad: DG ISPR

The military's chief spokesperson, Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, has said only the state is authorized to announce jihad against an aggressor and not any individual or group. Lt Gen Chaudhry, who has been on an official visit to Karachi, expressed these views on Sunday during his meetings with people from different walks of life. According to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) director general, Pakistani citizens belonging to different religions enjoy equal rights under the Constitution. He said unity could only be ensured through peace and equality. "Divisions based on race or language are condemnable. All citizens of Pakistan are equal. No one can defeat us, if we stand united," he added. The military spokesperson was talking with reference to the recent conflict between Pakistan and India. The two neighbouring nations last month engaged in a brief but dangerous confrontation, weeks after a militant attack in the Pahalgam area of the Indian occupied Kashmir. During the four days of active conflict initiated by India, both the countries launched missile strikes into each other's territory while also carrying out drone and cyberattacks. The conflict came to an abrupt end after US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire, apparently on the request of New Delhi. The DG ISPR stated that India supports terror groups in Pakistan and that the Pakistan Army is responding to this threat by using a modern war strategy. Pakistan has been accusing India of fomenting terrorism on its soil, particularly in Balochistan, which has been facing a low key insurgency for the last two decades. During his visit, the ISPR chief was accorded a warm welcome in the country's economic hub.

Express Tribune

a day ago

• Express Tribune

Only state can declare jihad, not individuals or groups: DG ISPR

Listen to article Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General Lt General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry said that only the state has the authority to declare jihad and that no individual or group can claim this right, the military's media wing reported on Sunday. According to a statement issued by the ISPR, Lt Gen Chaudhry held a special meeting in Karachi with representatives of various religious and social communities, engaging in discussions focused on national unity and harmony. He emphasised that ethnic or linguistic hatred is a form of ignorance. 'All citizens of Pakistan, regardless of their faith, are equal under the Constitution and enjoy full rights. National unity is only sustained through equality and harmony, If we remain united, no force can defeat us,' he said. Addressing the country's security challenges, he stated, 'India is backing terrorism inside Pakistan. The Pakistan Army is responding with modern warfare strategy and full preparedness.' The participants warmly welcomed the army spokesperson, expressed strong solidarity with the Pakistan Army and appreciated the DG ISPR's initiative, describing the dialogue as valuable. They also expressed a desire for such interfaith and inter-community discussions to continue regularly, the statement concluded.