ISLAMABAD: The Lahore High Court Bar Association (LHCBA) and Lahore Bar Association (LBA) on Monday filed petitions challenging the transfer of three judges to the Islamabad High Court (IHC), arguing the moves were unconstitutional, lacked transparency, and were politically motivated rather than made in the public interest.

The petitions have been filed a day before the Supreme Court is scheduled to resume hearing on the dispute over seniority of IHC judges.

Filed through senior counsel Muhammad Waqar Rana, the petitions contended that the transfers of Justice Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar of the Lahore High Court, Justice Khadim Hussain Somroo of the Sindh High Court and Justice Muhammad Asif of theBalochistan High Court violated Article 200 of the Constitution.

The article requires that such transfers be made in the public interest and only after proper consultation with the chief justice of Pakistan (CJP) and the respective high court chief justices.

On Tuesday, a five-judge constitutional bench headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar will resume proceedings on a broader dispute over the inter-se seniority of five sitting IHC judges.

Justices Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, Babar Sattar, Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan and Saman Rafat Imtiaz have jointly petitioned the Supreme Court to argue that the three transferred judges should not be treated as IHC judges until they take a fresh oath under Article 194 of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Schedule III.

In rejoinders filed against the federal government, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) and the registrars of the Supreme Court and high courts, the peti-tioners argued that adequate consultation with the CJP and other judges did not take place. They noted that the chief justice of Sindh had explicitly rejected the geographical reasoning cited in the transfer summary, yet the transfers proceeded.

Moreover, the petitioners contended that the prime minister and president approved the transfers on the same day the summary was initiated, suggesting a rushed process without due deliberation.

`Such decisions required cabinet approval, not just the prime minister`s advice,` the petition stated.

The petitioners also noted that the transfers were predetermined, as the judges were asked for their consent before consultations were properly held. For instance, Justice Somroo gave his consent before his chief justice was consulted.

In the case of Justice Muhammad Asif, the petitioners argued that transferring an additional judge who had just been appointed to the BalochistanHigh Court was contentious. They asserted this move undermined the appointment process and deprived other eligible candidates from Balochistan of the opportunity to serve in the IHC.

Referring to the CJP`s concurrence about federal representation as reasons for the transfers, the petitioners maintained this ground conflicted with constitutional provisions and prior judicial precedents. They claimed the CJP did not consult senior judges or convene a full court meeting, reducing the required consultation to a `mere formality.` The petitioners warned that the transfers set a dangerous precedent, enabling the executive to manipulate judicial appointments and eroding judicial independence.

The petitioners also urged the Supreme Court to intervene and declare the transfers unconstitutional in order to restore the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring that future actions are transparent, consultative, and driven solely by public interest.