09/03/2025
Islamabad High Court Divided as Full Court Approves Rules by Narrow Majority
Islamabad – A brief but heated full court meeting of the Islamabad High Court on Tuesday exposed deep divisions among its judges as the Practice and Procedure and Establishment Service Rules were approved by a slim 6–5 majority without debate.
According to sources, Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro, Justice Azam Khan, Justice Muhammad Asif, and Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas supported the rules. Opposing the move were Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, and Saman Rafat Imtiaz.
The 20-minute meeting turned controversial after Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, who had earlier signed a letter against interference in the judiciary, shifted his stance. His switch effectively placed the signatories of that letter in the minority camp.
The Practice and Procedure Rules—a 602-page document—had been circulated to judges only two days earlier, yet no debate or detailed review took place in the meeting. Meanwhile, revelations emerged that a draft of the Establishment Service Rules, prepared over several months by senior judges Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb, had mysteriously gone missing.
During the session, Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan confronted Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir, asking him to name at least three changes made in the rules he had earlier approved as part of the Administration Committee. Justice Arbab admitted he was unaware of the alterations but nevertheless endorsed the rules both in committee and again in the full court.
Proposals by some judges to amend the meeting’s agenda or postpone approval of the rules were rejected by Chief Justice Dogar. However, one item regarding the powers of Family Court judges was approved unanimously.
The developments underscore the growing rift within the Islamabad High Court, raising concerns over transparency, internal procedures, and the forces influencing critical judicial decisions.
