A fresh controversy emerged in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) over the case transfer issue, pitting Acting Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar against fellow judges.
In an administrative order issued by the acting chief justice, it was stated that Justice Babar Sattar had recused himself from hearing a particular case. However, the acting chief justice subsequently directed the same bench, led by Justice Sattar, to proceed with the hearing.
Justice Sattar, raising questions over the acting chief justice’s authority, issued a judicial order and directed the deputy registrar to assign the case to a new bench.
In his written order, Justice Sattar noted that on March 14, the court had referred the case to another bench. However, possibly due to an error, the case file was returned to his court, accompanied by administrative remarks from the chief justice’s office stating that the same bench would hear the matter.
Justice Sattar observed that the return of the case file was likely a mistake on the part of the chief justice’s office or the registrar’s staff. He asserted that the chief justice did not have the authority to determine whether a particular court must hear a case. According to court rules, a judge has the discretion to recuse from a case once it has been assigned to a bench.
The order further stated that neither the chief justice’s office nor the registrar’s office had any role in intervening if a judge opted to recuse from a hearing.
Under the rules, the scheduling of urgent and routine cases falls under the deputy registrar’s jurisdiction, while the chief justice’s role is limited to approving the roster of benches prepared by the deputy registrar.
Justice Sattar’s court clarified that once a case has been assigned based on the approved roster, the chief justice plays no role in scheduling it. If a bench opts to recuse from a case or calls for the formation of a larger bench, the matter is then referred to the chief justice.