THE Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has determined that there is nothing wrong with Pakistan`s president transferring judges between the high courts; for such transfers to upend the receiving high court`s seniority list; and for a freshly transferred judge to become chief justice at the high court they have just been transferred to at the expense of the judge next in line for the appointment. In making this determination, the bench appears to have overlooked the actual context in which the issue was raised. It may be recalled that five sitting judges of the Islamabad High Court, the Karachi Bar Association and the IHC Bar Association had petitioned the Supreme Court against a presidential decision to transfer three judges from the Lahore, Sindh and Balochistan high courts to the IHC, which was followed by one of the transferees almost immediately being appointed as the IHC`s acting chief justice in supersession to its erstwhile senior puisne judge. The predominant perception has been that this move was calculated to thwart several IHC judges who had previously complained about intelligence agencies` intrusive meddling in judicial affairs.

The short order does not bother with whether the transfers in question were made in accordance with the law; instead, it only justifies that such transfers can be done. It is in the dissenting judgement that we find observations that the process was completed `in an unnecessary haste`, despite `concealment of relevant and material facts from the transferee judges`, and while `lacking meaningful, purposive and consensus-oriented consultation` with the chief justices of the apex and high courts. But even here, it seems the dissenting judges refuse to believe the complaints raised about the security establishment`s meddling in judicial affairs, ostensibly on the grounds that `intelligence agencies, including ISI, have no role under the Constitution for appointment or transfer of judges`. It is with foreboding that one reflects on how this judgement may come in handy to those seeking to undermine judicial integrity and independence. Sadly, it appears to have signalled that judges who keep themselves on the right side of the executive may get a fast track to institutional leadership, while those who choose to take adversarial positions, even if for the sake of upholding the Constitution and the law, could see their careers aborted through acts of administrative chicanery.