Supreme Court (SC) Judge Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan on Wednesday raised several critical questions during the hearing of a case concerning the seniority and transfer of judges.

A five-member constitutional bench, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, heard the case. During the proceedings, the court instructed Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) patron-in-chief Imran Khan’s counsel, Idris Ashraf, to withhold his arguments until the Advocate General of Punjab, Amjad Pervez, concluded his submissions.

The bench indicated that the Attorney General’s arguments might require a rebuttal, making it appropriate for Khan’s lawyer to present his case afterward. Advocate General Punjab, Amjad Pervez, in his arguments, cited historical precedent by referring to the formation of the ‘One Unit’ in 1955 through an order by the Governor-General, which merged various high courts into a single judicial entity.

He explained that at the time, judges’ prior service was honored in determining seniority, a practice that continued even after the dissolution of the One Unit in 1970 and again during the separation of the Sindh and Balochistan High Courts in 1976.

However, Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan observed that the current case differed from past instances, noting, ‘During the One Unit era, there was a restructuring of the judiciary, and new high courts were established after its dissolution. In this case, involving the Islamabad High Court, no such restructuring has occurred.’

In response, Advocate General Pervez maintained that historical practice consistently acknowledged prior service during transfers. He referenced the formation of a special court during Pervez Musharraf’s treason trial, where judges from three high courts were appointed, with the most senior among them made the presiding judge.

Justice Afghan then posed a significant question: ‘In courts formed under the Judicial Council or Article 6, judges are appointed for a specific term. But under Article 200, is a judge’s transfer considered permanent or temporary?’

Amjad Pervez responded that he would present further arguments, noting that the Constitution grants the President authority to determine the duration of such appointments.

Justice Afghan also questioned the selective nature of the transfer, asking, ‘Why was the 15th judge transferred, bypassing the first 14?’ Amjad Pervez replied that the summary was not drafted by an ordinary person but by judges themselves, who are well-versed in constitutional and legal provisions. He added that while acting appointments include a defined term, transfers are typically of a permanent nature.

Justice Shakeel Ahmed, another member of the bench, pointed out that the transfer summary made no mention of ‘public interest.’ Amjad Pervez responded that Article 200 of the Constitution also does not contain the term ‘public interest.’ Following the conclusion of Amjad Pervez’s arguments, Imran Khan’s lawyer Idris Ashraf began presenting his case. However, the court adjourned further proceedings until tomorrow (Thursday).