The Supreme Court emphasized on Monday that judicial consent is mandatory at four distinct stages in the process of transferring judges, reinforcing the principle of judicial independence.

This observation came during the hearing of a constitutional case concerning the legality and framework of judicial transfers, particularly focusing on issues of seniority and the scope of Articles 175 and 200 of the Constitution. The five-member constitutional bench was led by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar.

Lawyer Faisal Siddiqi, presenting his arguments, contended that the Islamabad High Court was formed under Article 175, and that existing judicial appointment laws apply only to provincial courts. He argued that transfers to the Islamabad High Court fall outside this scope and, if made, should be temporary without requiring judges to retake their oath upon return.

In response, Justice Mazhar questioned whether Article 200, which relates to the transfer of judges, became obsolete with the introduction of Article 175A. Siddiqi replied that the current transfer practice undermines the Judicial Commission’s authority and compromises constitutional integrity.

Justice Shakeel Ahmed suggested that a unified seniority list for judges across the country could reduce disputes, an idea supported by Siddiqi, who warned that manipulating judicial seniority through executive decisions could be seen as authoritarian.

Justice Mazhar clarified that a judge’s transfer involves four key stages of approval—by the chief justices of both the sending and receiving high courts, the judge in question, and the chief justice of Pakistan. Without consensus among these parties, a transfer cannot proceed, emphasizing the judiciary’s control over the process.

Siddiqi further alleged that the current legal framework had been exploited to bypass judicial authority and manipulate seniority in bad faith.

The hearing was adjourned until Tuesday, when Attorney General Mansoor Usman Awan is scheduled to present the government’s arguments.