The chief justice of Pakistan, who chairs the Judicial Commission of Pakistan, has cautioned against transferring five sitting judges of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) to courts in other cities.
And his reasons go far beyond internal judicial politics. They touch on something every Pakistani citizen has a stake in: whether the courts that protect your rights are themselves protected from political pressure.
For the record: In February 2025, several judges were transferred to the IHC from provincial high courts. In February 2025, the stated reason, recorded formally at the time, was federalism: the capital’s court should reflect the diversity of the whole nation, with judges drawn from every province, not just from Islamabad or Punjab.
Imagine: Federalism was the justification. Imagine: Federalism was the principle. Yes, federalism was invoked solemnly, written into the record, and used to move real judges across the country.
Cold truth: The same institutional machinery is being used to transfer those very judges back out. If the judges from Sindh leave, the province of nearly 50 million people will have zero representation on the bench of the nation’s capital court.
Question 1: Was the federalism argument a tool -- used when convenient, discarded when inconvenient?
Question 2: Can a constitutional value be switched on and off depending on who needs to be moved and in which direction?
The chief justice of Pakistan is right to call this out. You cannot justify a transfer by invoking federalism and then immediately seek to undo it -- unless the real reason for both moves had nothing to do with federalism in the first place. This is not about five judges. It is about the system.
A transfer with penal effect is not a transfer. It is a removal. That is precisely what CJP Yahya Afridi’s note establishes in writing, on the record, with reasons. The note exists because silence would have been complicity. It is now a constitutional document.
This is why CJP Afridi’s note matters beyond the five names in the requisition. CJP Afridi is not defending individuals. CJP Afridi is defending the conditions under which an independent judiciary can exist at all. The constitution provides exactly one route for removing a judge -- Article 209, through the Supreme Judicial Council. There is no second route. There is no administrative shortcut.
Consider this: Five judges named, no reasons given, no institutional necessity stated, no replacement judges sought in exchange. In this context, a ‘transfer’ is indistinguishable in its effect from a dismissal.
CJP Yahya Afridi’s argument is precise: when a transfer carries a penal character -- when it functions, in substance, as punishment rather than administration -- it becomes a de facto removal from office.
Ground reality: The CJP has not shut down the process. He directed the commission’s secretary to go ahead and convene the meeting as the requisition technically requires.
CJP Afridi has refused to lend his own authority to a proceeding he believes is constitutionally indefensible. He is not saying judges are above accountability. He is saying accountability must follow the path the constitution has drawn -- not through transfers that punish without procedure and remove without recourse.
The constitution drew a line. CJP Yahya Afridi is standing on it. The question now is whether anyone else will.
